Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Royal Edinburgh Hospital for Mental and Nervous Disorders Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order Confirmation [Stamp Duties].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move
That in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or instruments which, in case the Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order had not been confirmed, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Governors of the George Heriot's Trust or the Governors of the Heriot-Watt College, as the case may be, certain property, interests and rights, there be charged a Stamp Duty of £5, and such duty shall be impressed upon a copy of the Act confirming the Order to be produced to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the seventy-second section thereof.
This is a small matter of a like nature to the Motion which I made in regard to the Perth Bill the other day. There is an institution in Edinburgh called the Heriot-Watt College which is carried on for educational purposes and is an amalgamation of a very old foundation with a modern institution which was known as the Watt School of Art. They were amalgamated in 1885. As time has gone on, the governors have deemed it expedient to give representation to various outside bodies and the extended order proposes that there should be a number of elected or appointed representatives by certain bodies such as the
Edinburgh Corporation, the University of Edinburgh, the Edinburgh Trades' Council, the Edinburgh Education Authority, the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, and so on. This entailed a new governing body being set up, and consequently there had to be a transfer of the property of the old trust to the new body. If the strict law ran its course, a heavy Stamp Duty would have to be paid on the transfer from the old governors to the new, but, as it is a matter of general public interest, this is one of those cases where the Treasury sees fit not to insist upon the payment of the whole Stamp Duty, but to allow a nominal token duty to be paid instead. Although the amount is larger in this case, the principle is exactly the same as in the Perth case. What I have to propose is that we allow the property to be transferred to the new governors on a Stamp Duty of £5.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

HOSPITALS (SCOTTISH PATIENTS).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Scottish patients who are undergoing treatment in hospitals situated in the South of England have fewer opportunities of visiting their homes than the majority of English patients; that long distance travelling, even when leave is granted, is more expensive than the average patient can be expected to bear; and if he will consider the possibility of modifying the existing regulations so that Scottish patients, whose disabilities allow of their being granted leave, may be enabled to visit their homes at Christmas and the new year by the grant of free railway warrants?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The leave arrangements already include the free grant of either two return tickets or four single tickets in the course of 12 months. Moreover, where the journey is one of exceptional dis-
tance involving overnight travelling, two additional nights absence are allowed. I regret that I do not find it practicable to make any special exception to the general arrangements for the grant of leave from all our hospitals.

SEVEN-YEARS' LIMIT.

Mr. ROBINSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of a man suffering from war wounds and who has to undergo operative treatment, full treatment allowances are paid to him and his family even though no claim has been made for pension; and whether he will take action to remove the seven-year limit in respect of claims to pension arising out of wounds received during the War?

Major TRYON: The special arrangements whereby, as I have more than once explained to the House, cases of the type referred to are given operative treatment, and special allowances are paid to the man's family during such treatment, are satisfactorily meeting the needs of this class of case, and I see no ground for taking the action suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands of cases outside the seven-years' limit suffering from shell-shock or physical disability due to war service?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, it is absolutely inaccurate to say that there are thousands of cases. Under our procedure any such cases are immediately reported to us, and there is no foundation whatever for the hon. Member's statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister of Pensions not aware that, apart from those suffering from physical disabilities, there are thousands of people who come outside the seven-years' limit?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member's figures are equally inaccurate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number outside the seven years' limit which, in very few cases, have been dealt with by the Department.

Major TRYON: I have already answered a question on that point. I
have met, and the Parliamentary Secretary has also met, the Chairmen of Pensions Committees all over the country, and there is no foundation whatever for the exaggerated statement of the hon. Member.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give approximately the number of cases?

Major TRYON: I had the answer ready for a previous question, but unfortunately the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) is not here.

CONDITIONAL PENSIONS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of officers, nurses, and men, respectively, in receipt of conditional pensions; how many of these have been in force for four years or more; and if he will consider the desirability of granting permanent pensions at the present rate to such pensioners as have been in receipt of a conditional pension for four years or more?

Major TRYON: The number of conditional pensions in payment to officers, nurses and men on the 30th September were, respectively, about 9,000, 500 and 150,000. In the large majority of these cases pensions have been in force for four years or more. I fully appreciate the desirability of making final awards as soon as this can fairly be done in these cases, but to make such awards on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, without further medical consideration of the individual cases, would not be in the best interests of pensioners.

Major McLEAN: May I ask the Minister of Pensions if it is not a fact that the question of final awards was settled by the Government of hon. Gentlemen oposite?

Major TRYON: The whole system of final awards was undoubtedly challenged by the Opposition, but the previous decision of the House of Commons was maintained, and this has enabled me to give security of assessment for life to more than 37,000 pensioners since the decision was reaffirmed by this House.

FINAL AWARD (L. BAKER).

Mr. MACKINDER: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the assessment of a final award in lieu of pension has
been notified to Leonard Baker, late private 25,287, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment; and, if so, whether he has been afforded the right of appeal usual in such cases?

Major TRYON: A final award was notified to Mr. Baker on 25th October, 1922. He appealed against this final award to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and the case was decided by the tribunal on 3rd January, 1924. There is no further right of appeal.

LORD TERRINGTON (EXTRADITION).

Colonel DAY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the cost to date of the extradition proceedings in the case of Lord Terrington?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): A small sum has been spent on telegrams and other expenses, but I cannot give the exact amount.

Colonel DAY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get this amount?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would mean going through the petty cash book for several months past and extracting shillings and half-crowns for telegrams.

Mr. HAYES: Is it really worth spending all this money on this individual?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

MOTOR CARS (WIRELESS).

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the country of origin of the four motor cars fitted with wireless that are used by the flying squad of the Metropolitan Police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These, like other Metropolitan Police cars, are of British make.

FIREARMS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increase in the number of crimes of violence, involving the safety of the police, and the extent to which these crimes are facilitated by the use of motor vehicles, he will consider as to arranging for police officers
to carry firearms when on duty in circumstances, as to locality or otherwise, which appear to justify that course?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a matter within the discretion of the chief officer of police concerned, and no special instructions on my part appear to be required.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be possible to suggest that some small shot should be used, capable of marking the cars that are escaping, so as to identify them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether his Department is furnished with reports by the police of all accidents to vehicles in England and Wales which involve personal injuries, and, if so, whether these reports are analysed with a view to discovering the principal causes of such accidents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; street accidents are not reported in this way. The police furnish returns which give the number of accidents in the several police districts and the vehicles by which they were caused, and form the basis of the returns presented annually to Parliament, but I have no further details as to the causes of such accidents generally. In the Metropolitan Police District, however, and certain other areas the returns are subjected to further analysis on the lines indicated in the question.

STATIONARY TRAMCARS (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the in creasing number of accidents to passengers from or entering tramcars within the Metropolitan area, he will issue regulations prohibiting other vehicles from passing stationary tramcars when so engaged, as is done in Glasgow and other cities at home and abroad?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question, and would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which
I gave on 6th December to the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner), of which I am sending him a copy.

ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC, PARLIAMENT SQUARE (ACCIDENTS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is able to give any figures with regard to the annual reduction of accidents, if any, in Parliament Square since the roundabout system of traffic was adopted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This year there is a definite reduction in the number of serious accidents, as there has been only one, as against five in 1925. The number of slight accidents is about the same.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House which was the first town in Great Britain to adopt this system?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is it not the fact that Brighton was the first town to adopt this system?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Knowing the activity of my hon. Friend in both municipal and political affairs, I think that perhaps it was.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not correct to say that there have been fewer accidents with the roundabout system in London than anywhere else in Great Britain?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That also is a question of which I must have notice.

Sir C. RAWSON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We must move on.

OXFORD STREET RESTAURANT (PROSECUTION).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a cloak-room porter employed at an Oxford Street restaurant who, on Friday last, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment at Marlborough Street Police Court for taking a few shillings from the staff gratuity-box, to which apparently he considered himself entitled; and whether, in view of
the Magistrate's comment that money given to and intended for the staff was retained by the proprietors, he will consider the propriety of reducing the man's term of imprisonment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen the report and made full inquiries into the case. The man was not a cloakroom attendant and had nothing to do with the cash taken. He robbed the till with a false key in the early morning when he was cleaning. He admitted a continuance of the robbery for two months. The staff in the cloakroom are paid by wages and not by the cloakroom fees. I see no reason to alter the sentence.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If it be the case, as stated in the question, that this restaurant keeps a box into which money for the staff is put, and then the proprietors appropriate it instead of giving it to the staff, are they not guilty of obtaining money under false pretences, and should they not be prosecuted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That may or may not be the case. I am informed that it is not the case. This man, however, had nothing to do with attending in the cloakroom, but with a false key he deliberately stole the money, whether it belonged to the employers or the employés.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the Home Secretary able to take action against the employers for having a bogus staff box there and extracting money from their customers under the pretence that they were giving it to the staff?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and learned friend has no right to make an allegation of that kind.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is that not stated in the question, and is that not the Magistrate's finding?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made full inquiries into the case. I sent one of my inspectors to see the cloakroom, and he inquired into the whole system. Really the statement in the question and that of my hon. and learned Friend are not founded on fact.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: From whom were the inquiries made as to the truth or
otherwise of the statement? Were inquiries only made from the proprietors who are supposed to have appropriated this money, or were they made of the employés also?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A police inspector was sent to examine into the whole system, and his report is perfectly clear. I know exactly the wages paid to the men. The fees paid are put into a separate box, and out of that the insurance for coats, hats, and other things that are lost is made up. It is not the money of the employés at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that these sums which are apparently contributed for the employés are utilised by the proprietors for insurance and so forth?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The word "apparently" used by the hon. Member is not correct, and he has no right to use it.

Mr. BOWERMAN: May I say, as a matter of explanation, that the use of the word "apparently" was based upon the comments made by the Magistrate.

LIQUOR TRADE (CLOSING HOURS).

Mr. LOOKER: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government propose to take any steps in the near future to remove the existing anomalies in the closing hours of licensed premises and to restore the privileges of bona fide travellers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 6th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).

MILK TRADE (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).

Mr. LAMB: 12.
asked the Home Secretary if he will publish a statement giving the statutory requirements, including those relating to workmen's compensation, so far as they are administered by his Department, governing the production and manufacture of milk in this country in parallel columns with the corresponding statutory obligations existing in all countries from which condensed skimmed
milk is imported into Great Britain, showing in each case the measures taken to enforce such statutory requirements?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The preparation of a statement on the lines indicated would demand much time and labour, and I regret that I should not feel justified in undertaking the task, I think my hon. Friend would find most of the information he wants given in a convenient form in the Reports published by the International Labour Office in 1925 on "Compensation for Industrial Accidents" and "Compensation for Occupational Diseases," and in 1923 on "Factory Inspection." The last-mentioned Report contains a survey of factory legislation in the various countries, and the two Reports on workmen's compensation include detailed comparative statements.

PRISONERS (COST).

Mr. RITSON: 13.
asked the Home Secretary, for the latest convenient date, the average cost per head per week of persons in His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales and in the County of Durham, respectively?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are no separate figures for Durham Prison, but I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the average cost per head in the several classes of prisons in England and Wales for the year ended 31st March last.

Mr. RITSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us why he cannot give a separate figure for Durham? Surely he ought to know it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My answer was clear, namely, that there are no separate figures for Durham.

Mr. BATEY: Would it not be possible to get the figures separately?

HABITUAL CRIMINALS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he contemplates any changes in the penal methods applied to habitual criminals?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The matter is always in my thoughts, but no change of importance can be made until after exhaustive inquiry.

RUSSIA (BRITISH DELEGATES).

Sir F. HALL: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the oath of allegiance to the Soviet republic taken by a number of British delegates to the recent Bolshevik anniversary celebrations in Moscow; and whether these persons will be allowed to return to this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen Press notices somewhat to the effect suggested in the first paragraph of the question.; but nothing in those notices nor any information that I have obtained otherwise affords any basis for the suggestion that the persons in question ceased to be British subjects.

Sir F. HALL: If a British subject swears allegiance to a foreign country, is not that tantamount to being treasonable to his own country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think it could be made the subject of a prosecution for treason, nor do I think that it would deprive him of his rights as a British subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the photograph of the Foreign Secretary giving the Fascist salute in Italy?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be much obliged if the hon. and gallant Member will send me a copy of it for my scrapbook.

Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend think that those who pose as British subjects should any longer be allowed to be British subjects if they swear allegiance to a foreign Power?

STAGE PLAY (UNLICENSED PRODUCTION).

Mr. ROSE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a case of the public production of a stage play by a provincial theatrical management without obtaining the necessary licence or submitting the manuscript for censorship; and if he is referring the matter to the public prosecutor?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have at present no information other than that given to me by the hon. Member, but I
am in communication with the Lord Chamberlain on the subject, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Colonel DAY: Should not the managers or proprietors of the theatre see the licence before a stage play is produced, and are not they also responsible?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told the hon. Member's colleague that I am in communication with the Lord Chamberlain on the subject, and, until I get the report, I think it would be unwise to make any statement.

COAL INDUSTRY (RESEARCH).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education what practical results have been derived from the reports of the researches and experiments of the Department of Scientific Research into methods of extracting oil and other by-products from coal?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the House is aware from the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on 11th May last, and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, the practical result of the Department's work on hydrogenation has been to establish that British coals available in quantity can be converted into oil by methods which I understand are now being thoroughly investigated from the commercial point of view by prominent British firms; and the practical result of its work on low temperature carbonisation has been to develop a process which is shortly to be tried out on a manufacturing scale. As regards other processes on which the Department has reported favourably from a technical point of view, I can only say that reports in the Press indicate that some of these are being extended in practice. As my hon. and gallant Friend will realise, the business of the Department is to increase our knowledge of the laws and processes which are likely to have an industrial application, and to publish the results in a form easily available to all who are interested. The Department has no machinery for following out all the practical results to which their investigations may lead; nor, in the opinion of my
right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, should the responsibility for doing this be thrown upon it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Noble Lord consider engaging a good advertising expert to write up the results in an attractive form and send them to the people who might benefit from them?

Lord E. PERCY: I think that any Government Department would probably find advantage from the services of a publicity agent, but, quite apart from the question of expense, I do not think that it would be altogether desirable to indulge in such methods in the case of a Research Department.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: When very valuable work has been done by the Department, is any charge made to the company that benefits by the research?

Lord E. PERCY: In regard to details of that kind, I must ask the hon. Member to put down a question.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the President of the Board of Education aware that yesterday the President of the Board of Trade said that the Government had spent money in purchasing a process, whereas to-day the Noble Lord says that there is something that is being experimented with? Is it not the fact that commercial plants were working before we heard about the Bergius process in this country, extracting oil from coal, as long ago as 1920?

Lord E. PERCY: I think that if the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that his supplementary question is answered by it.

Mr. WILFRID PALING: Is a report likely to be published soon as to the results that are being achieved by this new process?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not know to which process the hon. Member is referring.

Mr. PALING: I mean the reports that are issued from time to time.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it possible, in the experimental stage, to get metal to resist the strains involved in the Bergius process?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of questions on technical points.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MEDICAL INSPECTION.

Mr. HARRIS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many medical men and inspectors (education) are allocated to the Special Services Department of the Board of Education; are special schools generally inspected by medical men or by inspectors (education); what is the number of medical men and inspectors (education), respectively, engaged in visiting and/or inspecting special schools in the country; whether the Board of Education, in approving of the appointments of school medical officers, has laid down any minimum qualifications as to a training in psychology or a knowledge of schools and educational organisation; and what qualifications, in addition to ordinary medical qualifications and experience, are required by the Board when approving the appointment of certifying medical officers?

Lord E. PERCY: In addition to the chief medical officer, seven medical officers (five men and two women) are employed in the Medical Department of the Board. These officers, under the direction of the chief medical officer, are responsible for the inspection of all special schools, but the inspection of day special schools for physically defective children is also part of the duty of His Majesty's Inspectors. The latter also visit day schools for blind, deaf and mentally defective children from time to time, but the special problems presented by these schools necessitate regular inspection by medical experts. Special schools of all types are, in addition, inspected by the inspecting staffs of local education authorities. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, before approving a medical officer as a certifying officer, the Board satisfy themselves that he has had special experience in the examination of children for conditions of mental deficiency.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Board of Education
to hand over the special schools to the board of control; and whether, having regard to the anxiety caused in the minds of teachers and of the difficulties of local education authorities, if such is the intention of the Board, he can make a statement on the subject?

Lord E. PERCY: If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to special schools for mentally defective children, there is no present intention of transferring such schools to the Board of Control, but I should prefer to await the Report of the special Committee which is considering the problem of the mentally defective child before making any definite statement on the subject.

Mr. HARRIS: How many months will it be before the special Committee issues a Report? It has been sitting a very long time.

Lord E. PERCY: I know it has been sitting a long time. I hope it will sit as long as necessary to deal with this very difficult subject, but I think it probable that I shall receive, at any rate, an interim Report before long.

TEACHING STAFF (WASTAGE).

Mr. HARRIS: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any estimate has been formed and, if so, what is such estimate, either in totals or percentages, of the annual wastage in the teaching profession in the three departments, elementary, secondary and technical; what are the totals for the last three years for which figures are available; what are the totals, if figures are available, of the wastage during the last three years owing, respectively, to retirement on pension, retirement on disablement allowance, deaths, and leaving the service owing to marriage or other causes; whether the Board has formed any estimate of the wastage in the teaching profession each year of women retiring compulsorily or voluntarily upon marriage; and whether the Board has any statistics to show the number of women teachers required to resign upon marriage?

Lord E. PERCY: I gave some statistics upon these points in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Romford Division of Essex (Mr. Rhys) on 3rd March last. The Board have
collected some additional statistics but they require further analysis, and I should, therefore, be glad if the hon. Member would communicate with me and put his question down again in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Colonel DAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether any municipalities have decided to award pensions to blind unemployable men and women; and will he give the House the particulars?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The information in the possession of my Department shows that 24 local authorities have accepted responsibility for bringing the income of blind unemployable men and women up to some fixed amount. In many other areas provision has been made for this class of the blind by arrangement between the authorities and voluntary agencies concerned.

Colonel DAY: Could the right hon. Gentleman take steps to recommend the other local authorities to carry out the same principle?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter is left to the discretion of the local authorities.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any evidence of any cases of foot-and-mouth disease in human beings during recent years; and, if so, will he give details of such cases, showing the source of infection and the result of each ease?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, no case of foot-and-mouth disease in a human being has occurred in this country in recent years. The only two cases of suspected foot-and-mouth disease of which I have any record were investigated by a medical officer of my Department, and in neither case could any confirmation, either clinical or biological, be found to support the suggestion that the patient was suffering from this disease.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS.

Dr. DAVIES: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give a list of the
common articles of food which are analysed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts; and the number of samples of each class so analysed during the years 1924, 1925 and 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These particulars are contained in a Report which is prepared annually by my Department. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the Report for the three years mentioned.

OFFICES (INSPECTION).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if in view of the health conditions prevailing in many offices, he is satisfied that the inspection of offices at present carried on, and the powers of local sanitary authorities in London and elsewhere, are sufficient for the purpose?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no evidence that the health conditions generally prevailing in offices are such as to call for special action. The present powers of local authorities in the matter have not been shown to be insufficient, but the measure of inspection at the present time cannot but be conditioned by financial circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that health rates and sickness rates in offices are worse than among the general population and therefore justify inspection and inquiry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no evidence of that.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman that evidence, will he look into it in conjunction with the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs, which have had this matter under consideration for a long time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall certainly be glad to consider any evidence which my hon. and gallant Friend produces.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 44.
asked the Minister of Health what is the mortality during the last five years of persons suffering from tuberculosis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The crude death-rates in England and Wales from all forms of tuberculosis for the years 1922 to 1926 were respectively 1,121, 1,062,
1,058, 1,038, and 961 per million persons living. The hon. Member will find further information as to the decline in the mortality from tuberculosis in recent years on pages 42 and 43 of the last Annual Report of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HEALTH INSURANCE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether the incidence of insurable sickness, etc., affected by the National Health Insurance Act is lower among insured contributors in the agricultural industry than in other insured industries; and, if so, whether he is able to give any comparative figures?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Though there are special agricultural and rural societies, agricultural workers are also to be found in the large number of approved societies and branches which are not in general organised on an occupational basis, and it is impossible to give figures as to the incidence of sickness amongst such workers throughout the country. There is reason to believe that the incidence of sickness amongst persons engaged in agriculture is below the average for the whole insured population, but there are other occupations in an equally, or even more, favourable position in this respect.

INCOME TAX.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct inspectors of taxes not to demand payment of the first instalment of Income Tax under Schedule B assessments in all cases where the farmer has notified the local inspector that in all probability a loss is being incurred during the year current?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It has not been the practice to press for payment of Schedule B tax in the circumstances described by my hon. and gallant Friend if there is no undue delay in the presentation of accounts by the farmer. In view, however, of the present condition of agriculture, the Board of Inland Revenue are taking steps to draw the attention of inspectors of taxes to this matter.

VILLAGE FARM, HORBLING.

Mr. PALING: 72 and 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether the village farm at Horbling, Lincolnshire, will be let to a tenant who will reside in the farmhouse or to a farmer who intends to put a foreman in it;
(2) the number of applicants for the occupation of the village farm at Horbling, on the Crown estate?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The present tenant of village farm, Horbling, recently asked to be released from his tenancy, and recommended Mr. A. J. Allen, who has a small freehold farm adjoining, as his successor. Two other applications were received subsequently. All the three applicants were well qualified, but the Commissioners of Crown Lands, after careful consideration, decided to accept Mr. Allen on the grounds that (1) his was much the earliest application in point of time, (2) the holding could be more conveniently and profitably worked in conjunction with Mr. Allen's freehold farm, and (3) the farmhouse is better suited for occupation by a foreman than by a tenant farmer.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the man there has already another farm, and that this farm has been in the occupation of a tenant who already had two or three other farms and who put a foreman on this farm, and in view of the number of applicants is it not time that this policy was stopped?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think we must consider the Crown revenue. As this farmhouse is more suitable for occupation by a bailiff, I think we ought to avoid capital expenditure. Besides that, the selected tenant was in the field two months before the subsequent applications.

COTTAGE AND SMALL HOLDINGS, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. PARKINSON: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Lancashire County Council, having an opportunity of securing four well-situated farms for the purpose of establishing cottage and small holdings, requested the land valuer, in connection with the Inland Revenue, to value the property; that the property
was accordingly value at £14,000, and the county council agreed to purchase at this price; and that, although three independent valuations of the property arrived at a figure in excess of £14,000, the Department have refused to give sanction for the purchase on the ground that the real value is only £12,000; and whether, in view of the importance of encouraging county councils to promote small holdings, he will have the Departmental decision reconsidered?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would invite the attention of the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question put to me on Monday last by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), to which I will only add that the statement that three independent valuations of the property were in excess of £14,000 is not in accordance with the facts as reported to me. While I entirely agree as to the desirability of encouraging local authorities to provide small holdings, I do not consider that it is necessary to attain this object by approving purchases at prices in excess of current market value.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the tenants were already promised the occupation of holdings on this estate by the county council, and that they have made arrangements to enter, and will he expedite a settlement?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is very unfortunate if the county council have been exciting further expectations before the scheme was finally approved, but we are doing all in our power to encourage a settlement on the basis of a fair valuation.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman reject the valuation of the Inland Revenue officials in this matter, and on what ground has that rejection taken place?

Mr. GUINNESS: The usual practice is that we get two valuations, one by the Inland Revenue and one by our officials. The Inland Revenue valued this farm in October, 1926. It was then in the hands of a syndicate, who, apparently, had not kept up the cultivation very satisfactorily, and when the farm was valued in June of this year, nine months later, it was found to have
decreased considerably in value. The last value, which was £2,000 below the original one, was owing to the further letting down of the land.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the price would come down from £14,000 to £12,000 quickly enough if the owners had to pay their rates and taxes on their land value?

Mr. LUNN: Would the right hon. Gentleman state definitely whether his attention is being kept on this piece of land, and are they trying to come to a settlement for small holdings?

Mr. GUINNESS: Very much so; I have been bombarded with questions on the subject. But I do not think it desirable, while negotiations are going on, for me to intervene, because I am quite convinced, on the advice of the officials of the Department, that the value which we have put before the County Council is a fair one.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. ROBINSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, makes no provision for the payment of pensions to the women aged 65 and under 70, wives of insured men who have reached the age of 70 prior to 2nd January, 1928, he proposes to take any steps to place these women on an equal footing as regards pension with the wives of insured men who are between the ages of 65 and 70 on 2nd January, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to his question on the same subject on 23rd November.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF.

Mr. RITSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Health for the latest convenient date the average cost per head per week of persons maintained on indoor relief in Poor Law institutions; and the most frequent rate of charge per head per week for pauper inmates in county mental hospitals?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average weekly cost per head for the year ended 31st March, 1926, including the cost of buildings and loan charges, of the persons maintained in Poor Law institutions in England and Wales was 27s. 8d. The rate of charge per head per week for pauper inmates in county mental hospitals would approximate to 22s. 6d.

Mr. WELLOCK: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if, in the case of able-bodied men performing work for a local authority in return for Poor Law relief, such relief is estimated on a standard rate of wages; and whether his Department recognises or advises a minimum rate for such work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The arrangements made between the local authority and the board of guardians in cases of this kind vary according to the circumstances and the agreements made between the bodies concerned. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. WELLOCK: Would the right hon. Gentleman sanction the paying of 7s. 10d. relief in return for two full days' work given to a local authority?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not my practice to attempt in any way to fix rates of wages.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think 3s. 10d. for a full day's work is a satisfactory rate of pay?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the intention to interfere with the giving of varying rates of wages under the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That Bill does not provide for the settling of any rates of wages.

Mr. THURTLE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health his grounds for objecting to the grant by boards of guardians of outdoor relief to men who have been convicted of criminal offences and served sentences in connection therewith?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Unconditional outdoor relief can only be given to able-bodied persons by way of departure from the Relief Regulation Order, 1911, and I should have thought it would be obvious to the hon. Member that cases such as he describes would not generally be cases
exhibiting special features of a kind which justify the making of departures from the Order in their favour.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the very nature of things these men experience extreme difficulty in finding employment? Is he not aware that to refuse them relief is to drive them into further crime?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member did not ask about refusing relief nor did I say that they were refused relief. He asked about outdoor relief.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a special report of an officer of his Department has censured the Shoreditch Board of Guardians for granting relief to men of this character?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, that was outdoor relief. To offer them indoor relief is quite another matter.

Mr. JOHN PALIN: 53.
asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a circular to all boards of guardians calling their attention to the statutory provision that 7s. 6d. of any payment of national health insurance shall be deducted before an estimate is made of the income of an applicant for relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The statutory provision to which the hon. Member refers is very well known to boards of guardians, and I have no evidence of any tendency on the part of guardians to disregard it. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to issue a special circular on the subject.

Mr. PALIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statutory provision has been ignored by the Newcastle Board of Guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware of that fact.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is also ignored by other boards of guardians?

EX-SANATORIA PATIENTS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 47.
asked the Minister of Health how many ex-sanatoria patients have become chargeable to the guardians in the last five years; and what is the cost per year of an ex-sanatoria patient who becomes chargeable to the guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret this information is not available.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman no means of obtaining it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not, because there is no distinction made between ex-sanatoria patients and others.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be advisable in the national interests and in the interests of health to see that this information is collected by the boards of guardians,

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see what bearing that has on the subject.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. GROVES: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham have passed resolutions urging him to review the whole position of the incidence of local taxation, and asking, further, that he shall review the whole position of the repayment of loans granted to the West Ham Board of Guardians; whether he will take steps to obtain greater assistance from the national Exchequer to necessitous Poor Law areas, i.e., those areas where the rate for the relief of the poor is in excess of the average rate of the country; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to these resolutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of what are known as the necessitous areas has been the subject of repeated discussion in this House, and I can add nothing to the statements made on behalf of the Government in those discussions.

REFORM.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce next Session a Bill to reform the Poor Law?

Mr. EVAN DAVIES: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now inform the House if it is his intention to introduce legislation in the near future to carry into effect the declared intentions of the Government to abolish boards of guardians throughout the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on the 10th ultimo.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL WORKERS ACT.

Major GLYN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health how many dwellings have up to the present been reconstructed under the terms of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, in the counties of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Returns of progress under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, are obtained quarterly, and according to the latest returns, to 30th September last, no dwellings had actually been reconstructed under the Act in any of the counties referred to. The Gloucestershire County Council, however, had received applications for assistance in respect of the improvement of 14 dwellings.

Mr. HURD: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given the House, is he taking any steps to spur county councils to do their duty in the interest of the workers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have that under my special consideration.

Mr. PALING: Does that mean that applications have been sent in to county councils, and that they have taken no notice of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. It must not be assumed that they have taken no notice of them. I said applications had been received and were under consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any cases that have been turned down where the tenant of a house in a rural area received wages of £3 a week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not answer that question without notice.

Major GLYN: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that a large number of rural dwellings could thereby be made sanitary and thoroughly suitable
for habitation, he will consider extending the grant to include general repairs to cottages, where considered necessary, at a minimum cost of, say, £30, and allowing the local authority responsible to reduce the grant to one-half instead of two-thirds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the extent to which financial assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, could be afforded to works of ordinary repairs or upkeep was fully discussed during the passage of the Bill through this House, when it was decided that works of such a nature could only be included for the purposes of assistance where they were incidental to and connected with the reconstruction and improvement of the buildings. I do not think that the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend would prove sufficiently attractive to induce landlords to take advantage of it if they were thereby tied up for 20 years by the conditions laid down in the Act.

Major GLYN: If evidence can be brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that many houses would be put in order if the Act were extended in that direction, will he consider it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad to consider it.

Major GLYN: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing legislation, or making regulations, that will enable the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, to be made applicable to all dwellings in rural and urban areas up to a value of £400, and that the stipulation that it only applies to dwellings to which the agricultural rent is 3s., or thereabouts, weekly should be modified so as to be governed by the Rent Restrictions Act, with power to the local authority to see that the stipulated rent is not exceeded, since at present the Act is only of use to cottages attached to farms, and under existing circumstances neither owners nor occupiers of farms can afford to spend money on the reconstruction of their cottages; and whether, as a further encouragement to the owner of a cottage to make use of the Act, a charge of 5 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. may be allowed on the amount expended by him?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proposals of my hon. and gallant Friend would entirely alter the scope and intentions of the
Act, and I am afraid that I cannot undertake to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to his suggestions.

TRANSFERRED HOUSES.

Mr. B. SMITH: 49.
asked the Minister of Health what local authorities in England and Wales have been granted permission to transfer houses built under the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, to the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924; and what changes, if any, were made in the rents at which the transferred houses were let?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) on the 18th and 23rd of last month. There is no power to transfer houses built and let under the 1923 Act to the 1924 Act.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the information was withheld?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information was not withheld; it was given in the answer.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few months one local authority has made application to transfer the incidence of the rate under the 1923 Act on the loan to the Wheatley Act of 1924? Can he give us the name and the amount?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not without notice. That is not the question on the Paper.

Mr. EDWARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names now?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They were given. I beg the hon. Member's pardon. there were two questions, and I was looking at the other one. I do not gather that the names were given, but I will give the hon. Member the names with pleasure.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an estimate of the saving of the taxpayers' money arising from the reduction of the housing subsidy as from the 1st October last?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The capital value of the reduction of the annual Exchequer subsidy for houses completed after 1st October amounts to £25. The actual saving to the Exchequer will depend on the number of houses built while the reduced subsidy is operative.

Mr. PALING: Is there any evidence that owing to the reduced subsidy the number of houses to be built will be larger next year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no evidence yet as to how many houses will be built next year.

Mr. MACKINDER: Would it be possible to get an estimate of how many people have been thrown on to unemployment insurance as a result of the subsidy being reduced? I know of 50.

ARTERIAL ROADS (LAND VALUES).

Mr. HARDIE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that land skirting the new arterial road near Manchester is selling at £800 per acre; and will he give powers to local authorities to rate this betterment value in lieu of subsidies from the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The local authorities already have power to increase the assessment to rates of any such land, if and in so far as that course is justified by an increase in the rental value.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand from that reply that if the owner of the land skirting the road raises the price above what it was before the road was made, the local authorities have power to raise the assessment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, they have power to raise the assessment.

Mr. HARDIE: Why has not the right hon. Gentleman replied to what I had in my question regarding the increased value of the land? Why does he always come back to the word "assessment" instead of dealing with the value which has been made by public expenditure?

Major PRICE: Have the local authorities power to purchase any of the land on these arterial roads?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any information regarding the betterment taxes which may have been charged by this corporation? Has he any evidence of such taxation having been imposed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, that is not a question which I can answer without notice, and it is not the question on the Paper.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in any future laying out of arterial roads that sufficient land on either side can be purchased, so that the betterment value can accrue to the State?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a subject for another question.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that when municipalities, such as Manchester, have bought land on the side of new roads, they have distinctly depreciated its value by putting up bad houses?

Mr. WELLOCK: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the necessary steps to secure for the community the increased site values created by the new arterial roads built by public money as the result of public enterprise?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the 30th November.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this growing scandal, and would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into the methods employed in our Dominions overseas to meet precisely the same thing?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the fact that many arterial roads are lowering the value of certain property and will he consider the question of compensation in those cases?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to which reference has been made was as follows:
If the hon. Member's question is to be interpreted as an inquiry whether the Government propose to introduce a Bill for the purpose of taxing site values, the answer is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government consider making inquiries as to the methods adopted in our Dominions for meeting this growing scandal, which exists not only in this country but elsewhere, in regard to the increased site value brought about by the construction of these new roads?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the last time he taxed site values we lost money on it?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there not some legislation in existence in connection with one of the Transport Acts that permits the Minister or local authorities to acquire land bordering on arterial roads and so secure any increased value?

IRISH GEANTS COMMITTEE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the case of one of the late Irish Crown Solicitors, a man over 60 years of age, who was dismissed from his office by the Free State authorities after the truce with only a small gratuity and who was driven out of private practice in Ireland, solely because he had acted as Solicitor for the Crown and has now had to emigrate and take employment as a clerk at a weekly wage, was considered by the Irish Grants Committee recently; is he aware that the Grants Committee refused to make any further compensation for the dismissal from his position but made an award on account of the loss of his private practice; has any portion of this award yet been paid, other than a small advance to meet his immediate and pressing necessities; and will he state why the amount recommended should not now be announced to this man and immediate payment made of the reduced sum recommended, to enable him to restart in life?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which the Financial Secretary gave him yesterday.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be no need to ask these questions if these unfortunate people had been
treated half as well as certain deportees were treated some time ago?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when these final awards will be made? Is he aware that if they are not made soon, many of the applicants will be dead before they receive the money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and I am not in a position to make any further statement.

BASLE MISSION TRADING COMPANY.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the French and British Governments during the War sequestrated certain commercial properties belonging to Swiss subjects, and known as the Basle Mission Company, trading in India and Africa, under the belief that these properties were largely enemy controlled, his attention has been drawn to the findings of the French court of inquiry which established to the satisfaction of the French Government that no enemy influence or capital was employed; whether he has any information as to the action of the French Government on this question; and what steps he Intends to take in the matter?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 87 and 98.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Basle Mission and the Commonwealth Trust; that an offer has been made by the Basle Mission to resume their properties in the Gold Coast on certain terms; that these terms were refused by the Commonwealth Trust; and what steps does the Government propose to take to make the directorate of the trust comply with the wishes of His Majesty's Government;
(2) whether, seeing that the Swiss Government has drawn the attention of His Majesty's Government to the sequestration in India and Africa during the War of the properties of the Basle Mission Commercial Company, and that the French Government has ordered a complete restoration of its portion of the pro-
perties so seized, and that the Swiss Government has asked for the restoration of these properties sequestrated in the belief that they were enemy-controlled, he will say when he expects to be able to assure the Swiss Government that these properties will be returned to the original owners?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply to the questions. I have not received any official information as to the actions of the French Government, but I understand that the facts are as stated. The properties of the Basle Mission Trading Company in Africa were sequestrated during the War on the ground of enemy association not of enemy control. I am well aware that negotiations have been proceeding with the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, as well as with the Basle Mission Trading Company. Negotiations are still in progress, and I do not propose to prejudice them by premature statement. I am not aware of any steps by which the Government can make the directorate of the Commonwealth Trust alter its policy.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get the Official Report of the French inquiry?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, I will ask for it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are in the trust deeds of the Commonwealth Trust, powers reserved to the Government to change the directorate, if necessary, and so change the policy of the Trust?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is hardly the question. The inquiry in Question 87 is not whether there is power left to the Government to get rid of the directorate but to make the directorate comply with the wishes of the Government.

RATES, POPLAR.

Mr. HURD: 48.
asked the Minister of Health what contribution to the local rates in the Poplar area, in the last available year, is made from, the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, the Equalisation of Rates Fund, and Exchequer
grants; and what steps his Ministry is taking in relation to the rates in this area, in view of their effect upon industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the financial year 1926–27 the Poplar Borough Board of Guardians received £520,095 from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and £22,007 from the Exchequer Contribution Account of the London County Council or from Government Departments. In the same year the Poplar Borough Council received £26,095 from the London (Equalisation of Rates) Fund and £30,879 from the Exchequer Contribution Account of the London County Council or from Government Departments. As regards the last part of the question, it is not clear what kind of action my hon. Friend contemplates that I could or should take.

Mr. HURD: Would it not be desirable for the Commissioners to see whether the work cannot be done elsewhere?

BRITISH FUNDS (SCOTTISH HOLDERS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 60
asked the Chancellor. of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Bank of England refuses to recognise the rights of Scottish holders (under age) of British funds to transfer, with the consent of their curators (guardians), their holdings, thus disregarding a right conferred on such persons unconditionally by the Imperial Parliament, he will take steps to establish control over the proceedings of the Bank of England where it is acting for the Government in respect of loans made to the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative. I am not aware that the Bank of England is bound by any Act of Parliament or otherwise to apply different laws in regard to the transfer of stock held by Scottish and English holders under full age, and there are practical difficulties in the way of any such differentiation. The question whether these difficulties can be overcome has been considered in the past without success, but I will have it further looked into.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under Section 2 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1920, the husband of a woman under 21 is a
curator, he has absolute title, and in the circumstances every time an application of this kind is made the Bank of England requires a judgment of the court, which makes it prohibitive for the small investor to invest?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, of course, I carry all these matters in mind.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a case where the assistance of some eminent Scottish lawyer is desirable?

PALESTINE LOAN.

Sir ALFRED KNOX: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the terms offered on the occasion of the flotation of the recent Palestine loan, guaranteed by the British Treasury, represented a yield of £4 19s. 6d. per centum, whereas the present yield of British Government long-dated securities is approximately £4 15s. per centum?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Palestine Loan is redeemable in 15 years, at the option of the Palestine Government, and on that ground alone, apart from other considerations, it is not comparable with the British Government long-term stocks, which my hon. Friend has in mind, which cannot be redeemed for 30 or 40 years or longer. The actual yield of the Palestine Loan, on the basis of redemption in 15 years, is £4 19s. per cent.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prior to the issue of this loan the London County Council 5 per cent. loan stood at 103¾ on the market, and is the London County Council security a better guarantee than that of the Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not like to answer that question at Question Time. All these matters are extremely complicated, and if, in the ordinary course of the financial business of the year, it be desired to raise a Debate on our conversion policy, or loan policy, I shall be quite ready to give a reply.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the fact that on the issue of this loan our own Conversion Loan fell substantially? Are not these matters that should be looked into before further issues of this kind are made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These matters are considered by the authorities on whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to rely, and every consideration is taken into account. In this case, it appears that this loan has received a measure of support on sentimental grounds on which the Treasury could not possibly count beforehand.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have not the Treasury also to count on the anti-Zionist sentiment and propaganda of the party opposite?

Sir A. KNOX: Does not this loan represent the presentation of a large sum of money to Stock Exchange speculators?

Sir FRANK NELSON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of issue of the recent Palestine loan, including cost of underwriting, brokerage, advertising, etc.?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Treasury is not responsible for the expenses incurred in connexion with the issue of this loan, which are a matter for the Palestine Government.

Sir F. NELSON: May I ask on whom the responsibility lies as to whether or not a loan of this description is underwritten; a loan in which the principal and interest is guaranteed by the Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that question. I understand that the arrangements for this loan were not in any way out of the ordinary.

Sir F. NELSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great body of opinion has arisen which holds the view that, as very favourable terms were offered, it was quite unnecessary to underwrite it at all?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that probably the profits of the loan will go into the pockets of the same people who go out to Palestine?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

GIFTS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the
total amount of the gifts made by individuals to the Exchequer during and since the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures are as follow:



Cash received by Treasury (including dividends surrendered).
Stock, etc. donated to Exchequer.



£
£


From outbreak of War to 31st March 1919.
341,920
26,674


From 1st April, 1919 to 19th November, 1927.
132,341
577,431



474,261
604,105

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the gratifying and more than remarkable additions to the Exchequer, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take this opportunity of telling us what remissions of Income Tax there will be next year?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these gifts were made by members of the Socialist party?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether all the money represents gifts, or whether a part of it represents conscience money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think a proportion of it does represent conscience money, to which the hon. Member likes to draw attention.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was there any gift from the Lloyd George Fund?

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.

Mr. B. SMITH: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investments have been held by the Government since 1914, showing for each investment the Department concerned, the date and cost of acquiring the investment, the amount received as gross interest or dividend for each year since 1914, the date of and the amount received on disposal, and the present market value?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The information covering the whole of this period is not readily available, and I do not think the
labour of examining into the War period would be justified. For information covering the years 1920 and 1921 I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) on the 20th February, 1922, of which I am sending him a copy. I will, if he desires, have the information in that answer brought up to date and circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in due course.

Mr. SMITH: Has not the House a right to know the total amount of investments in the years mentioned, and, if not, what is the reason for obscuring them from the country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no reason for obscuring them from the country, but, when questions are asked which call for immense labour and expensive research, and very costly returns, it is very often legitimate for the Minister to point out to the House that it would probably not be in the public interest to make special researches. If the House considers that the matter is so important that the expense should be incurred, the Government would, of course, facilitate the wish of the House.

Colonel DAY: Does that apply to all questions and all answers given at the same time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never generalise unduly from the particular.

SINKING FUND.

Mr. LUNN: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the statutory amounts payable to the Sinking Fund in the years 1925–26 and 1926–27, together with the amounts actually paid, less Budget deficits involving additions to the National Debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: For the financial year 1925 the new Sinking Fund was £50 millions, and for 1926 £60 millions. If the Budget deficits are deducted, the net amounts available for reduction of debt may be stated as £35,961,880 and £23,306,206, respectively. I should explain that, in accordance with the law, the Sinking Fund was paid in full in each case and the Budget deficit covered by fresh borrowing.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Sir F. NELSON: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the royalties paid by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to the Persian Government for the year 1926; and whether there is any likelihood of a revision of the agreement between this company and the Persian Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is £1,341,963, and to the second part that I understand that no question of revision has arisen.

Sir F. NELSON: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the original cost of the holding of His Majesty's Government in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the value to-day at approximate market prices; and whether His Majesty's Government have, by virtue of voting power, a controlling interest in this company?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The original cost of the holding of His Majesty's Government in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was £5,200,000 and the value to-day at approximate market prices is £23,600,000. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative but the Government are pledged not to interfere in the commercial management of the company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman very glad now that he has not sold them?

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).

Mr. VIANT: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the number of hours overtime worked by Customs and Excise departmental clerks employed in London Central collection during the period January to October 1927, inclusive, indicates that there was sufficient work in that office to merit the employment of a further six clerks; and, seeing that it would appear that the average length of overtime worked during each month by departmental clerks tends to show that overtime is not caused by a seasonal rush of work will he make early arrangements for the appointment of additional clerical staff to that office?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am aware of the position referred to by the hon. Member. It is intended to appoint additional clerical staff as soon as the necessary additional office accommodation is available.

Mr. VIANT: Has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury any idea as to when the accommodation will be ready?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

Mr. HARRIS: Is this extra work due to the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask whether it is intended to appoint some of the ex-service clerks who have been discharged from Kew?

Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.

MUNICIPAL BANKS.

Mr. B. SMITH: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what local authorities have resolved in favour of powers to be given by Parliament for the establishment of municipal banks within their areas?

Mr. SAMUEL: I obviously cannot say what local authorities have passed resolutions on the subject. The only direct representation received, additional to those named in my predecessor's reply to a similar question on the 19th November, 1925, has been from the Walthamstow Urban District Council; but five authorities have included proposals in Parliamentary Bills or given notice of their intention to do so.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there not a Treasury Committee inquiring into the matter, and, if so, when can we have that Committee's Report?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, the Committee's deliberations are now drawing to a final stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Would the Prime Minister kindly state what is to be the business next week?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The business will be:
Monday: Report and Third Reading of the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill; Mental Deficiency Bill; Nursing Homes (Registration) Bill.
Tuesday: Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill; Third Reading of the Road Transport (Lighting) Bill.
Wednesday: Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates for the Army and the Beet Sugar Subsidy.
Thursday: Debate on the Prayer Book Measure.
The business for Friday will be announced later. If there be time on any day, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the Prime Minister propose to take the discussion on the Resolution for the Additional Judges before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question yet. I cannot say anything about the time.

Major PRICE: What other business will be taken on Wednesday if the Lords throw out the Prayer Book Measure?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think we might wait.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

As amended, considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause on the Paper, relating to contributions in respect of temporary employment abroad, in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) is out of order, because it will involve a charge. The same remark applies to the second new Clause—(Employment in ordinary staffs of Ministry of Pensions hospitals)—in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and other hon. Members. The first Amendment I select is that in the name of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), to leave out Clause 2.

CLAUSE 2.—(Rates of Contribution in case of young men and young women.)

Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause is one of the most important in the Bill, because it sets up absolutely new classes and deals with them most inadequately. It proposes to separate young men and young women of the age of 18 to 21 into a definite and separate class. It appears to overlook altogether the actual condition of working people in this age, and to make conditions for them quite unsatisfactory for the necessities of the case. Let me give an illustration from a question that has been asked this afternoon. What the Clause will do will be to give the young man of 18 years as benefit, in case of unemployment, about one-third of what that young man will cost the country if he has to go to the guardians and as an able-bodied young man has to go into the workhouse. Could madness go further than to offer, roughly, one-third of what will be given quite freely and without any trouble if the boy goes to the guardians and has to enter the work-house? What is still worse, it is less than one-third of what it will cost the State if, through being short of money, the lad yields to temptation and becomes a criminal. It is such a foolish way of going to work that I cannot understand it.
I am not going to whip the argument, nor shall I appeal to the Minister. I am fairly stating the facts as I see them without making any appeal at all. I have made enough appeals; I intend to make no more. If a young man is over 18 years of age he is called upon, in cases of emergency, to risk his life. There is no question about that. Under our industrial law when a youth passes the age of 18 he is considered to be outside the range of special protection. Our industrial law, as far as I know, regards a boy over 18 as a man and in this case, for the mere purpose of saving a few paltry thousand pounds this extraordinary proposal is being made concerning such young men. The proposal is not only bad but it is vicious in principle and I think it will be mean in execution. It will be mean, because, in connection with this subject, we must take into account what the contributions are intended to mean in the shape of benefit. I will not go outside the bounds of order by referring in extenso to the financial provisions that follow. I speak only of the financial provisions in regard to these particular benefits and I raise the most earnest protest of which I am capable against the system which the Minister is introducing. Under that system the boy who is asked to go to war in case of emergency is taken from his position under our present industrial law and put into a different category. This proposal, if it is not intended deliberately to make boys and girls over 18 parasites on their parents and friends, will, at any rate, achieve that end.
As a matter of fact, in our industrial life, generally, the boys and girls over 18 belong to families who have had to struggle very hard to keep them up to that age. Generally speaking, it is just at that age when young persons in working-class families are expected to become the staff and support of their parents. Yet just at this period, if they should fall into unemployment, this scheme is so devised as to make them continue to be parasites on those who have already borne the heat and burden of the day in keeping them up to that age. I believe that, wittingly or unwittingly, a vicious principle is being introduced. I have some acquaintance with the young man over 18 in industrial life, and, as a general rule, he is a self-respecting, decent young man far more grave and
serious than those whose education is still proceeding at that age. To take a boy of that kind, ordinarily independent and self-supporting, ordinarily proud of his personal appearance, and to put him into a special class of this character, is a great mistake. In that belief, I propose the deletion of the Clause.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I would like, if possible, to strengthen the plea which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). I would like the Minister to realise the position that will be created by the operation of this Clause. Having, in all probability, paid contributions during the two years between the ages of 16 and 18, these young persons are then to be entitled, if, unfortunately, they should be thrown out of work, to 10s. a week in the case of lads and 8s. a week in the case of girls. Between the ages of 19 and 20 those rates will be raised to 12s. and 14s. The Minister cannot have foreseen the difficulties which are going to arise under those conditions. At the period of life between the ages of 18 and 20 the normal youth not only requires better food, but, in other respects, it is a period when domestic expenditure in regard to young people is considerably higher than at other periods. Young people of that age are often growing out of their clothes. The prospect of being deprived of the ordinary employment which otherwise would keep them fit and contented is a serious one to them. They are now more likely than ever to be made discontented by the application of such conditions as are proposed in this Clause in the event of failure to find employment.
I put it to the Minister that these young men and women, of all the classes who come within the Act, are most entitled to his consideration. If they are thrown out of industry with this inadequate provision and with little opportunity of receiving any training, they are likely to become a burden on the community in future. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not prepared to do something to look after their physical and mental development between these ages. I ask him to consider that they will be the breadwinners of future years. To prepare them for the work of the future will be to act in the best interests
of the race and will be for the betterment of the insurance scheme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position upon this point, even if it costs the Insurance Fund a larger amount to provide a fair and adequate maintenance for these young people. I ask him to go into the matter again, having in mind the betterment of these young persons, the breadwinners of the future.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. HAYDAY: I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) in pointing out to the Minister the unfairness of the suggested scale of contributions to be paid by these young persons. Under the 1920 Act four-pence was the contribution of the insured person for a benefit of 15s. per week. That contribution gradually increased until at one stage it became ninepence. It has a particular significance to-day in connection with the creation of this new scale of contributions for a new class. The Minister's original intention was to have, in the case of male persons between 18 and 21, a uniform benefit of 10s. for a uniform contribution of sixpence. That has been revised, but the modification only makes the anomaly more plain. The proposal in this Clause means that whereas a male person between 18 and 21 in 1920 paid fourpence for a benefit of 15s., he will now be called upon to pay sixpence for a benefit of 10s.—that being, of course, the commencing scale. But, as I have said, the Minister has 4.0 p.m. since revised his scale though he has kept the contributions at the same level. The contribution proposed is 6d. for a person under 19 years of age for a benefit of 10s. a week. The same contribution, however, from a person above 19 and under 20 carries 12s. a week benefit, and the same contribution from a young person from 20 to 21 years of age carries the benefit to 14s. Then, for the extra penny, they go up to 17s. The fact, however, remains, that under this new scale there are to be three varying sums in benefit for the same contribution. Quite apart from the unfairness of the proportion of 6d. for 10s. as against 7d. for 17s., one can see there is a great unfairness in the distribution of the contribution. I know it may be said that it is one of the incidents of insurance that you must expect this dispro-
portionate amount from the young person in order to make the fund solvent and more secure, and able to meet its benefit demands as time goes on. But is that so? Is a young person between 18 and 21 better able to pay 6d. a week for this varying amount of benefit than a person over 21 to pay 7d? I very much question it. I think all the handicap is in the direction of the younger person, particularly between those ages, because one cannot say that there is any difference in ability, physical and mental equipment, as between those of 18 and 21, and, say, those between 21 and 30. I would rather take it, from the point of view of equipment and physical and mental energy, as better between 21 and 30, possibly, than between 18 and 21.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I interpose only for the convenience of the hon. Member, and, I think, for that of the whole House, and I do so in order to ask Mr. Speaker a question on a point of Order. This Clause strictly deals with contributions, but, as the hon. Member's argument proceeded, he naturally raised the question of benefits in return for contributions. That, of course, strictly speaking, is a matter for Clause 4. I would ask you, therefore, whether, if hon. Members opposite also wish it, you would allow a Debate on the whole subject of the 18 to 21 classes, benefits as well as contributions to be taken together? I am only suggesting this because it seems that it would be difficult for hon. Members to develop their argument unless free to take both sides of what is really one question.

Mr. TINKER: Clause 2 and Clause 4 must hang together, and I think the Minister's suggestion is quite a good one, and I would like to support it.

Mr. HAYDAY: If that point is to be raised, I think there are two quite different arguments, one being as to the adequacy of the benefit on the purely benefit side when it is reached. At the moment, it is a question of contributions, but one must speak of the amount of contribution set down in relation to the amount of benefit, without encroaching on the argument as to whether the amount of benefit is adequate or not.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Surely the question of the adequacy of the benefit could be argued now, and the vote taken
separately. Certainly it would be for the convenience of the House to have the whole thing in one picture.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the suggestion which has been made by the Minister is a very reasonable one. Hon. Members, I think, would be hampered too much if they had to discuss contributions without discussing benefits. At the same time, I must say that on Clause 4, it is my intention to call upon the Amendment in page 3, line 28, to leave out paragraph (c). I think that would be suitable if hon. Members desire it, and that it would be desirable to have the wider discussion on the present Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: Of course I raise no objection, but it might have altered the trend of the discussion at the opening had my right hon. and hon. Friends known.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, say on this point of Order, and without reference to my right to speak later on, that if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first would have wished to take a different line had the course of discussion been wider, I think that on this side of the House there would be no reluctance whatever to his having leave to speak again to enable him to develop his whole position.

Mr. HAYDAY: Keeping for the moment to the point of the relation of the contribution to the benefit, it does strike me that, as regards the new class between 18 and 21, the disproportionate reduction in the amount of benefit in relation to the contribution asked, is open to very grave objection from the point of view of reason and fair dealing. As to the proper proportion of the contribution, certainly it does appear to me that the flat rate contribution of 6d. from the whole of this new class, notwithstanding the varying amounts of benefit for the contribution, does require some re-adjustment. Then, if 7d. is to be the contribution for a person in receipt of 17s. a week benefit, it seems to me that 6d. is too much to ask of a person in receipt of 10s. per week, if one takes it on that particular basis. But I would like to go a little further. The Minister well knows that the evidence submitted upon this point to the Committee, upon whose Report this Bill is assumed to be based,
was that the contribution should have been about one-half. In this case, if it were worked out in proportion to the benefit suggested, the contribution should have been about 3d., but if you work it out now in proportion to the 7d. in relation to 17s., and the 6d. in relation to 10s., it ought to be more like 4d. or 4½d., certainly 4½d. at the very outside in relation to 7d., when 7d. carries 17s., and 6d. only carries 10s. If you desired further to have a range comparable to the rate of benefit received, you would have complications, because you would have to set up another two scales of contributions. Therefore, I do urge the House to give consideration to the matter of the contributions.
As to the measure of benefit provided for those contributions, I know that the general theme running through the minds of those who have promoted this Bill is that, between the ages of 18 and 21, there must be 6uch benefits as are not likely to encourage young persons to think more of drawing benefit than of seeking work. That is one point which has emerged in our discussions as a guiding principle of the Government, but there appears to be another one, from our point of view, that has entered into the calculation, that is, the fund being in deficiency to the extent of £22,000,000, it is necessary to assist or accelerate the recovery of the fund to a more stable or solvent condition, and that can only be done, or can only be assisted in its accomplishment, by reducing the benefit of this class of insured person. As to whether 10s. can, by any measure of imagination, be said to be a deterrent against young persons seeking diligently some form of employment, or sufficient to maintain them in board, assuming their parents are able to give them all the shelter and the clothing that are necessary, I am certain there is nobody in this House who would ever attempt to justify that, because the experience of most of us is that when a youth enters into young manhood at the age of 18, he can generally consume twice the amount of foodstuff—and he wants nutritious food to help in his physical development—as the man between, say, 40 and 50 or 55. It is at that early stage when he requires most, and if you lower to any extent the measure of sustenance required for building up the physique of a
young person in those circumstances, then you are really committing an injustice. Young persons cannot go to boards of guardians like older persons can. If a young man between 18 and 19 comes into contact with the Poor Law administration, it is really a bad start for his career as a useful citizen, and I really believe will indelibly brand itself upon his mind, and may handicap all his future endeavours and aspirations to keep himself a free citizen of this Empire.
I do not know whether it is too late now, but I would urge that there should be some readjustment of the contribution, and some further readjustment of the benefit. Eighteen years of age, of course, is manhood's estate. Eighteen years is the age covered for an adult workman. I believe last week negotiations were taking place in which an employer endeavoured to reduce the adult age from 21 to 18 in connection with an agreement. To what extent that was suggested by the creation of a new class of manhood in this country I do not know, but if that idea is going to gain ground, there will be seen the ill-effects of a Measure such as this upon industry in general.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Until you gave your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I rather wondered what the speeches of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) had to do with the Clause we are discussing, which relates solely to contributions; and if the Amendment is carried, the only effect will be that the contributions in question will go up by 2d. a week. We discussed this point in Committee, and only a few days ago we discussed the relationship of contributions to benefits. I believe it is a matter of sound insurance that the young people should be paying in as much as they can possibly afford in the early years of life, so that there shall be built up a reserve later on to enable those same people, when their risks of unemployment are greater, to be in a position to draw benefits. If we delete Clause 4, or that part of it governing what we are now discussing, the amount of benefit drawn by these young people will be greater, and the Fund will be in deficiency to that extent; and, if we are to balance that deficiency, we shall have to cut down some other rates of benefit. Throughout these Debates hon. and right hon. Mem-
bers opposite have discussed the question as if there were unlimited sums available. They never seem to judge it on the same basis as they judge their own personal finances, or to say: "If I buy this, I cannot buy that." If you make the rates of benefit for these young people much higher, you will have to find so many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more, which can only be obtained by a general increase in the rates of contribution or by a general reduction in the rates of benefit.
There are several reasons why the younger people should have lower rates of benefit. First of all, there is, broadly speaking, a lower level of remuneration for these young people, and, therefore, if you attempt to observe some proportion between remuneration and benefit, so that benefit is not going to be a stimulus to avoid seeking work, you have to remember that. Another reason is that the responsibilities of these young people are very much less than those of older people. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to draw some conclusions from calculations he had made as to the cost of maintaining young people in Poor Law institutions. It is quite conceivable that those institutions, being publicly managed, spend far more in maintaining people than an ordinary housewife would do, but we are not dealing with people in Poor Law institutions, but with what it is necessary for a housewife, admittedly under difficulties, to do to enable these young people to keep going; and, therefore, the argument with regard to what it might cost in a socialised institution has no particular bearing on the point.
Another reason for treating these people rather differently is that their opportunities of obtaining employment are substantially greater than the opportunities of those in later years. That argument was challenged in Committee, but ultimately it was generally agreed, after the figures had been looked into, that unemployment is substantially less among young people than among old people, and some further information in support of that view has been obtained by means of a question asked by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), who wanted to know
the number of registrations at Employment Exchanges, the vacancies notified and the vacancies filled in Great Britain for the
12 months ended to the last convenient date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1927; col. 516, Vol. 211.]
The reply shows that the average number on the register at any one time was 60 per cent. in excess of the total number of vacancies filled through the medium of the Exchanges in the period of a year. The ratio was as three to two in the case of men, but when you come to boys, the vacancies filled in the course of a year were nearly four and a-half times as great as the number on the register at any one time. That means that the chances of those described as boys of getting a job were six times as great as the chances of the older men, and I think that is a fact which we have to take into account. If hon. Members will consult yesterday's Press, they will see that on Monday last week there were 30,000 boys on the register, and the number of vacancies which the Exchanges filled among boys in the 12 months ended 24th October was 136,000. When we bear in mind that a large proportion of them got jobs without the assistance of the Exchanges, the total number of boys who obtained jobs in the course of the year must have been vastly in excess of 136,000, but even on the basis of the vacancies filled by the Exchanges the ratio is four and a-half to one. If that condition prevailed with regard to the men, the problem of unemployment as we see it to-day would not exist, and I wish hon. Members opposite would realise the difference which exists between the chances of the young and the chances of the old in the matter of obtaining employment.
Further, I am satisfied that a great many parents will be very pleased indeed when the change which we are considering is made. They feel that there is being developed a certain sense of irresponsibility among some sections of the young people, because they can go to the Exchange when they are out of work and draw a man's benefit. Their ideas have become rather enlarged, and their parents in many cases have had great difficulty in obtaining a reasonable amount of discipline at home.

Mr. TINKER: Was that your idea when you were a young man—to shirk responsibility if you got the chance?

Mr. WILLIAMS: When I was a young man I worked fairly hard. There were odd days when I took a little time off
when I could. Like the rest of us, I liked a holiday and I liked a bit of fun, but, on balance, I think my point of view was very similar to that of the great mass of young men to-day. I wanted to do my job fairly and squarely.

Mr. TINKER: That obtains now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but not with regard to 100 per cent. of the young people. Why have we in this insurance system a variety of safeguards and checks? It is not to deal with 90 per cent. of the population, but with the 10 per cent. that are different. We have laws in this country against murder, not because the majority of us indulge in it, but because a small fraction do so.

Mr. WALLHEAD: But you do not punish the non-murderers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You provide a law to deal with all.

Mr. HAYDAY: What a comparison, between an unemployed young man and a murderer!

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have heard many sane things from the hon. Member for West Nottingham and a few things that are not in that category. His last interjection falls into the latter category. You have coercive laws to deal with the general mass of the people. I was using only one argument, but I have presented four arguments, whereby the change provided in this Bill is justified. I was pointing to the difficulties which some parents experience, which every Member of this House knows they experience, and about which complaints are constantly reaching various people. I am entitled to put that forward, not as the sole argument, but as one which is true of a certain number of these young people, and I think it would be very unwise not to take that fact into account. The truth is that many of these young people live at home, they contribute to the home in various proportions, and when they are out of work some of them may think they are relieved of their obligations to contribute at home, and so they spend far more on amusing themselves when unemployed than when in work. But that is not true of the mass, and it would be grossly unfair to suggest that it is. We are considering a small proportion of the total, but we are entitled so to draw our
Bill that it will deal with the case of these people as well as fit the case of the great majority.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: We have just had a speech from one whom we now regard as our chief mentor. Clause 2 is really important from our point of view, because it introduces a new class of contributor. That is the fundamental question about this Clause; but, in point of fact, what the Bill originally did was to create a new class of contributors and a new class of beneficiaries. As the Bill now stands, it gives us a new class of contributors and three new classes of beneficiaries, and that change has arisen very largely because, I think, the public at large were shocked by the right hon. Gentleman's intention to pay such low benefits to young men and young women between the ages of 18 and 21. I do not believe that anybody in the House, unless it were the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), felt that the orignal rates of benefit were satisfactory, but by bowing to the storm of public opinion the Minister has increased his difficulties.
The first case that we made against the new contributions for the new class was that they were much too high, having regard to the benefits which were receivable in respect of those contributions, and that still holds, with an even greater degree of force, because the right hon. Gentleman has now introduced certain injustices, in that while everybody between 18 and 21 pays the same rate of contribution, there are three different rates of benefit, in each case separated by one day. On a young man's or a young woman's birthday the rate to which he or she is entitled goes up, and that seems to us most unfair, but we are against the establishment of this new class at all. If there had to be a new class, we should have preferred it to be a new class for those under 16, which would have brought within the insurance field a very large number of people who to-day become unemployed, but who are under no sort of supervision by the community. It is urged that the new system enables the younger people, where the incidence of unemployment is lower, to build up a fund to enable them to get benefit when they are older, but that is nonsense. This Bill is not going to be
in existence when those people are grown up. By the time those who are now between 18 and 21 are beginning to suffer from the heavier incidence of unemployment among elderly people they will come under an Act vastly different from this Bill, and all that it means is that the younger people to-day are subsidising the benefits of the older people to-day. That seems to be a most monstrous thing. Having regard to the fact that these young people are regarded as irresponsible, why should they be called upon to pay a higher rate of benefit in order that older people should to-day be able to receive their somewhat meagre benefits?
A further argument—and we have had it from the hon. Member for Reading—is that these young men and women between 18 and 21 have no responsibility. It is within the knowledge of Members of this House that there are considerable numbers of young men and young women between those ages who are living in lodgings. That is so particularly in the big centres of population, and especially in London, and these people obviously have the sole responsibility for their own maintenance. Our case against the benefits to be paid for these contributions is that they make it utterly impossible for these people during hard times to maintain themselves in lodgings. Apart from that, the assumption that all these young people have nobody to care for except themselves is again untrue. A very large number—I do not say a large proportion, but, in the aggregate, quite a large number—of these young people are the mainstay of the family, where the father is dead, and where the mother or elder sisters or invalid members of the family have to be maintained. Such a burden in thousands of cases rests upon young people between 18 and 21. Even where the bread winner is alive, there are scores of thousands of families where the direct contributions of the young people are essential to the maintenance of even a modest standard of life in the home. It is, therefore, preposterous and absurd to pretend that the benefit to be given to the new class of contributors is going to be spent in cinemas and public-houses, and that it is a sort of pocket money and should be restricted.
The benefit is utterly inadequate to keep body and soul together. As I understand the Government point of view,
it is that they are not interested in keeping body and soul together. They admit that the benefits are not sufficient for the maintenance of the people who receive them. That has been admitted specifically in definite terms on the other side of the House. Our view is that they are utterly inadequate, and that they ought to be sufficient for maintenance; otherwise, it means a degradation of the standard of life in the home or recourse to the Poor Law. We have been told on many occasions that we are assuming that there are unlimited funds. The difficulty that we have been in is that we have not been able to deal with the question of the State's contribution at all. It is not within our power to deal with that. Really, all that is implied in our Amendments is that the State should pay a heavier contribution towards unemployment insurance. I have said it here, and it has been the burden of many speeches. We feel strongly, and a large number of people outside feel strongly, that the contributions made by the State ought to be more substantial, and that the burden which falls upon industry, whether through the employer or the worker, should be less. Clause 2 and the first Sub-section of Clause 4 represent the Government point of view, which is to put the maximum burden upon the insured person and his employer, and the minimum burden upon the State. I do not wish to use extravagant language about the scale of benefits, but they are grossly inadequate and are bound to mean that certain families will just tip over the edge into the Poor Law as a definite consequence of the institution of this new class of contributors, because in the working-class home 2s. a week may make all the difference between keeping away from the Poor Law and being driven to it.
The right hon. Gentleman has reduced rates of benefit by as much as 7s. a week, and it is clear, therefore, that in many cases the effect of this new proposal will be to thrust people upon the local rates. We have had a good deal of sympathy expressed during the course of the Bill with the local ratepayers, but the whole purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the responsibility of the ratepayer and to diminish, as far as possible, the responsibility of the State. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone further. The concession that he has made
with regard to benefit really gives away his own original case and accepts our case. He has now admitted that 8s. per week is too small. Why should we believe that 10s. is right when a girl reaches the age of 19, and 12s. is right when she reaches 20? These figures can stand the test of criticism no better than the original 8s., and we submit that the right hon. Gentleman is flying in the face of all industrial practice by setting up this special class.
I wish hon. Members would realise that it is the common practice in all the trade boards of this country, with only one exception, to give adult rates of wages when boys and girls reach the age of 18. That principle is found to be embodied in hundreds of industrial agreements between employers and trade unions. There have been countless reasons in the past why that should be so. In so many occupations—I do not say necessarily in the highly skilled ones—at 18 people become adults from the point of view of efficiency, and they never can earn better wages than they are earning at 18 in a very large number of cases. If these people receive adults' wages, and in consequence establish a certain standard of life for themselves, the unemployment benefit that is paid to them ought to have regard to that standard of life. But the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in this Bill is to refuse to allow these people to receive the privileges of adult persons, and to be allowed to pay full contributions and obtain full benefits. There are many unfortunate Clauses in this Bill, but for pettiness I think the establishment of the new class is the worst. I only wish it were possible at this stage to move the right hon. Gentleman to abolish the new class, and to re-establish the system that has been in operation since we have had unemployment insurance in this country, and treat any man and woman of 18, having regard to their position in industry, as an adult person who should be eligible to receive the adult rate of benefit.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and can only find that he has used one argument. He has been arguing that there was no justification for setting up a different class of person from the age
of 18 to 21. The chief fact on which he based his argument was that in the industrial world there was little differentiation in regard to wages made between the class of 18 to 20, inclusive, and those from 21 and over. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to establish the facts. I have taken a good deal of trouble in order to find out the rates which are actually paid. I ask the House to note that this is the principal point on which the hon. Gentleman's case is based. Here are the rates. I will take, first of all, the rates for women, and then I will take the rates for men. It is perfectly true that in the majority of the trade boards the rates for women of 18 and over are equal to those of 21 and over. That applies in 32 out of 39 boards. In seven of the 39, the rates are lower for women from 18 to 20 than for those from 21 upwards.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Are those in the same industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. When it comes to women's trades that are not under a trade board—again I have had the occupations and wages tabulated—those in which there is a recognised difference—there are only two where there is not—number 34. Eighteen of them have a different rate for those from 18 to 20, as compared with 16, in which the rate is the same for the younger class as for the adult class. But the hon. Gentleman based his argument primarily on the case of men. I ask the House to note what is really the case with regard to men. His argument was, that, of course, in the skilled trades there might be a difference, but that, at any rate in the unskilled trades, what he said held good, namely, that at the age of 18 the average man got an adult wage. I will take both the skilled and the unskilled trades. He admitted that so far as the skilled trades were concerned there was a difference in payment between the class 18 to 20 and the adult class. Of course, that is perfectly true. It is true as regards the trades in which there are apprenticeships; 90 per cent. at least of all the young people of 18 to 20 in those trades have a different rate of wages from those of 21 and over. In all the other craft trades, where there is not actual apprenticeship, but an acquisition of craft skill, the same thing holds good, namely, that in the great majority of
cases there is a difference of earnings between those from 18 to 21 and those from 21 onwards.
I will come to his main question last of all and the foundation of his case. He said that he based the whole of his argument on men's rates in unskilled trades. What are the facts? I have taken an analysis of the whole category of trades about which we have information—39 trade board trades and 40 other main trades. Of the 39 trade board trades, there are 38 in which lower rates of wages are paid to males at 18 than at 21; in only one are the rates the same. Of the 40 other trades, there are 36 in which lower rates are paid at 18. There are four in which there is no recognised differentiation betwen rates at ages from 18 to 20 and at ages from 21 and over. The number of trades in which there are specifically the same rates for both ages is nil. I would say this to the hon. Member before he bases another argument on a statement of that kind—neither he nor I have been handworkers in our lives, but at any rate I took particular trouble, after the, allegations that have been made, to find out the real facts.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I attach no importance to numbers of trades; will the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers of workpeople?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not got the number of workpeople, but I will read him the trades if he wishes. I will first mention the four trades which do not specify whether the wages should be the same or different. They are big trades: coal mining, iron and steel, engineering and dock labour. In those trades it is not specified whether the rate should be either the same or different, but I put it to the practical knowledge of any man engaged in it or having a close practical acquaintance with the coal mining industry that in the skilled occupations, the main occupations, in that industry, it is only a very tiny proportion of men who do the heavier work before they are 21; for instance, only a small proportion who become hewers.

Mr. WHITELEY: Putters do the same work and get the same wages; and it is heavier work than hewing.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The proportion of those under 21 is not large.

Mr. WHITELEY: Yes, quite large.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the iron and steel trade the same thing is true; and if I could take a census of dock labourers I am pretty sure I should find that the proportion of people under 21 doing the heavy work is a small one. Those are the four excepted trades. Now I take the trades in which rates are lower at 18 than at 21: building, civil engineering, light castings, heating engineering, electric cables, lock, latch and key, needle making, wool textile, silk, textile bleaching and dyeing, boot and shoe, gloves, dyeing and dry cleaning, railways, printing, paper making, pottery, brick, chemical, metal, paint, colour and varnish, soap, furniture, flour milling, baking, brewing, cocoa and chocolate, jam making, electricity supply, gas works.

Mr. HAYDAY: That is wrong—gas is wrong.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have made inquiries. If I have made a mistake I will say so at once.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted whole trades. What he says may operate in certain sections, but not in all sections—not in textiles, for instance.

Mr. SHAW: May I call attention to the fact that in weaving a piece rate is paid and the operative, whatever his age, gets the piece rate.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I have said, I was referring to the unskilled portions of those occupations. I am dealing with the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood); it is on the unskilled portions of the trade that he based his case.

Mr. HAYDAY: I happen to be the secretary of the workers' side of the Joint Industrial Council for Gas and all our agreements for general labourers carry the same rate. It is the job which carries the rate and whoever does that job, whatever his age, gets the rate.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will make inquiries and tell the House, but what I have been saying is the result of the specific inquiries which I asked should be made. If there is a mistake in any one item I shall be perfectly glad
to admit it, but the overwhelming case is against the contention of the hon. Member. That is the chief point on which he based his whole case, and the overwhelming proportion of the facts is against him.
I will take the one or two other arguments which he put forward, dealing first of all with the insufficiency of the rates. He said it was not a maintenance rate. That is a fundamental difference in the point of view of hon. Members on that side of the House and upon this side. On the opposite side of the House hon. Members aim at full maintenance. The rates they have proposed in Committee are only a step towards full maintenance, and I may assume, and perhaps hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, that in the end full maintenance comes to full wages, too. I do not know whether they would say I was wrong in assuming that their ultimate object is full wage-rates as being the only proper full maintenance, but at any rate what they ask is full maintenance.
To hon. Members on this side of the House I would point out that it has never been our belief that unemployment benefit should mean full maintenance. We have always said that it should be an exceedingly valuable help to those who are out of work, and are anxious to get work and entitled to get it, in order to tide them over hard times. Full maintenance we have never asserted that it should be. If anyone asks me whether the inadequacy of the rates for juveniles is particularly evident, I would say that it is not. The hon. Member puts the usual sort of conundrum, "If you did not think the 10s. rate was a right one, you have given away the whole case for a rate that is greater." If we applied that argument to his own statements, his 20s. rate would be inadequate, his 25s. rate would be inadequate, he would have to get up to at least full wage-rates, and I fancy that from his point of view those, too, would be inadequate. That type of contention leads no one anywhere.
I put the original rates in the Bill for this reason. I have an immense respect both for the authority of the Blanesburgh Committee and for the proposals it made, and I put those rates into the Bill because they were the rates pro-
posed by the Committee, unanimously; but when I looked into the rates I thought they ought to be graded, that there ought to be a better gradation between the rates for juveniles and the rates for adults. Of my own volition and on my own initiative, and apart from any pressure outside, I put this grade of rates before the House in order that hon. Members might consider them. Let us take the grade of rates for young men to start with—10s., 12s., 14s. Compare the average figure with what was the rate not so long ago for adult men with families. To-day 12s. is worth more than the 15s. was in 1921.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is it worth the difference in contribution which they have to pay?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am coming to that point. The hon. Member is trying to leap two stiles at once instead of taking one at a time. Let us take the value of the rate of benefit. In those days there were not so many complaints against the rate of adult benefit, at least no one levelled the kind of general stream of modest invective that we hear in the House against these rates to-day.

Mr. STEPHEN: Modest?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Well, fairly restrained in the present circumstances. Possibly with continued repetition the violence goes out of it. The average rate for a young man to-day, which is being so much criticised, is greater in value than the rate for a full adult in 1921.

Mr. STEPHEN: When the Minister says there was no great general criticism or invective in those days about the rates, is he aware that there were special Labour party conferences called in consequence of the inadequacy of those rates, and that the invective was greater?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At any rate it was not so vocal in this House. I will take only one further particular in stance and that is the case singled out as one of hardship by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the hard case of the young man who has a wife or mother to support. I would point out that the hardship of this particular type of case, where a young man may have a mother to support, has not been put forward previously
from any part of the House. I considered that case myself and tried to put myself in the position of a young man who might have a mother to support, and I am meeting that case by an Amendment which will come on later. That is the most reasonable case which could be put forward. The number of such cases is small, however. As I say, I thought over these rates carefully and tried to put myself in the position of a young man with such responsibilities, and I thought that here was a real hard case and I have met it with an Amendment.
I pass from that to the rates of contribution about which the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has asked me. He says the rates of contribution are unfair. We are told that because benefit has been graded, rising from 10s. to 12s. and i4s. in the case of a young man, with similar grading for a young woman, that therefore contributions ought to be graded too. I do not think that follows for a moment. While I introduced the same contributions as were recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee, just as I introduced the benefits they recommended, I have increased the benefits but I have not asked for any increase in contributions. I have charged the increased expense to the comparatively small balance of income over expenditure which is calculated to exist under the system which is proposed. To make a graded rate of contributions would in fact be perfectly impossible if it were to be tried. It would be difficult to increase the number of different stamps for different classes. I inquired and found that it was possible to introduce a third grade, but to introduce two additional grades as well at intervals of a year would be impracticable.

Mr. HAYDAY: The alternative is to make the benefits uniform.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member would prefer to have a uniform 12s. now rather than a graded rate of benefit?

Mr. HAYDAY: Oh, no, 17s.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As soon as the hon. Member is challenged we see what he says. Let me see what his real meaning is.

Mr. HAYDAY: It is quite clear. I do not want to be misrepresented. All the
time we have been opposed to the new classes. That is our contention.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perfectly true, but, supposing there is a new class, I say to the hon. Member "Would you like to have the new class simplified or would you like to have the benefit graded at 10s." 12s., 14s.?"

Mr. HAYDAY: Fourteen shillings, if we have to have it.

5.0 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has been asked whether he would like to have the average of 12s. or the grade 10s., 12s., 14s., and, smiling, he has put the question by each time. I take it, given that answer, that he would grade it within these limitations just as we have done. On the other hand are the contributions too high? I take the average for young men, 12s. I take the adult benefit under this scheme of 17s. If I were to have the proportionate contribution paid by the employer for a young man, it would be nearly 6d. He is paying a penny more. I say at once, that, broadly speaking, in any system of this kind, it is perfectly right that a rather larger proportion should be paid by persons at the earlier ages. To use the argument that we cannot expect that the present scheme will be enforced when the young man of 18 to-day becomes the older man of 55 is not—I do not like to use a worse adjective—worthy of the hon. Member who brought it forward. Everyone knows, when schemes of this kind are instituted, that you must take people in a group especially in cases where there is less unemployment at an earlier stage in life, when a slightly larger proportionate contribution should be paid. Those are the merits both of the new Clause and of the benefits and of the contributions. I repeat again finally before we pass from this stage of the Bill that I certainly think that the preponderating opinion in the country which was in a good position to judge was in favour of the establishment of this new class. I was received with cries of dissent from Members on the opposite side who said that it was only certain selected chairmen of local committees. I say it was not so. There were provincial gatherings of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Local Employment Committees, many of whom were far from being Con-
servative in their opinion, and in the vast majority of cases these chairmen and vice-chairmen had had meetings of their whole committees beforehand in order to consult them. It was after those consultations that they gave the preponderating opinion that this class should be etablished. The case has been perfectly clearly made out, and I have every confidence in asking the House to vote in favour of it.

Mr. SHAW: We have had rather remarkable arguments. We have, on the one hand, been lectured on the virtues of a common-sense business-like insurance scheme, and we have had it explained to us, on the other hand, how easy it is to have a scheme which will insist on the same contribution and pay three different kinds of benefit. We cannot square the two arguments. The arguments with regard to this being built on sound and well-accepted business insurance are amazing. As a matter of fact, it is built upside down. I know of no insurance system in the world that says to the young, "You must pay a bigger price for your insurance than the old." It is the only system in the world that says, "If you are young and you are a good life, you must pay a higher price, because some day you will get old." It does not matter a row of pins to me what is the ordinary business of insurance. I want some system of proportion used even by those who argue against us. As I have said before, the arguments on this insurance system have been upside down and contrary to every system of insurance of which I have ever heard. All insurance of which I have heard, whether it be employment accident insurance, fire insurance or life insurance, is built on the principle that the less risk you have the less the premium you have to pay. I know of no private institution which is different. I am going to leave that and come to the point as to whether a graduated scale of benefits is good.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, will he, before he passes from this, state clearly that in what he says is the system of insurance there is not a greater proportionate payment by young people in health insurance as compared with the risk of ill health?

Mr. SHAW: I said quite plainly that there was no private business system of insurance built on the lines about which the Minister has spoken.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then the right hon. Gentleman admits this case?

Mr. SHAW: Quite plainly, I do not admit anything. The Minister may take it for granted that when I want to admit a thing I shall do so for myself and that I shall not let him do it for me. The Minister has not faced this fact. He has argued that the Blanesburgh Committee state that stages of benefits were permissible, but he has never argued that what he proposes is a fair thing for the people who are going to receive benefit. He has never tried to prove that 8s. for a girl up to the age of 19 is a reasonable sum to offer under circumstances which are inevitable, namely, that that girl is not likely to have savings upon which she can depend. Under the most modest condition of living, if you live on oatmeal and water, and if you pay for the smallest and cheapest room in the world, if you keep yourself clean, if you keep boots on your feet, you cannot make double that sum keep you alive. Where is the rest to come from? That is a question the Minister has never answered. Neither the Blanesburgh Committee nor all the talk about insurance schemes can solve the problem until that question is answered.
Take the young man of 18 years and 6 months. You are going to give him a sum of 10s. Why an ordinary healthy young man can almost wear 10s. off his boots in the course of a week. Does anybody suggest that any young man in this country living in the plainest possible way, if he lives decently, can live on less than 25s. a week? Where is the other 15s. to come from while he is unemployed? What is he going to do? Do you want our young men to grow up with a burden of debt on their shoulders which will take a lifetime to shake off? Do you wonder that some of us feel keenly on this point? I was a working man myself. I had a burden of debt on my shoulders, not through any crime that I had committed, but because I contracted rheumatic fever through walking about in boots that no one ought to have been obliged to wear. I know what it means to work for years and years in order to work off an enormous deadweight of debt.
Are you going to build on the shoulders of our young population these mountains of debt that will take them years and years, in times of good trade, to work off? Will the Minister or any Member of this Government explain, when talking about full maintenance rights, how they expect these differences between what it costs to live in the meanest possible way and the benefits which are being provided to be made up? That is the problem which I put to myself. I can see several answers to the question, all of which, I say frankly, fill me with dismay. I can see no reasonable answer that will give me a feeling of satisfaction. If I could see a way in which this problem could be met without doing irremedial harm to our young people I should feel easier in my mind. I ask the Minister to devote his attention, not so much to precedents and to talking about scientific insurance, not so much to the general principles, but to the hard concrete fact that in 1927 a young man or a young woman cannot keep clean and decent and live in the meanest way on which he proposes. There is such a gap between what he proposes and what is needed that it must be filled by someone else. Who is that someone else to be? Is it to be the parents who themselves are badly off? Is it to be filled in ways that are questionable? That is the problem as it presents itself to me.
There is another thing that presents itself to me. It is the absolute inability to see through the same spectacles as the Government. I have asked myself sometimes: Is it that my views are so twisted that I cannot recognise what the other person's point of view is, or is it that perhaps something escapes my mind altogether which to them is quite clear? I look upon this question—and this question of the girls affects us in my native county of Lancashire, I think, as much as anyone in the country—from the point of view of the people I know so well and love so dearly. They are genuine, decent, straightforward people possessing desires similar to those of hon. Members on the opposite benches, possessing the desires that all of us have. All of us have a desire for good things. We have a desire for good clothes. We all have desires, more or less, for good books. All of us like amusements and all of us like a reasonable chance of a brighter life. But this Bill is based on trying to crush every bit
of brightness out of the life of every unemployed worker or working woman. The young people are treated as if they were dogs. "Get it where you can. What responsibility is it of ours to see that you have maintenance. We wash our hands of responsibility. We do not believe in it. We never have believed in it, and we hope that it never will be the case." I cannot understand the position. I said that in my opinion the first duty of the House is to see that no decent person in this country willing to produce shall go without a sufficiency of food and clothing. This Clause will not give it, and because it will not give it we shall go into the Lobby and vote against it.

Mr. TINKER: There is a considerable conflict of opinion between hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and ourselves on this question. Take the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). His argument was that the reason why these benefits should be reduced in respect of persons between 18 and 21 was because these people would not attempt to get work if they received adequate benefit from the Employment Exchanges. If that argument prevails in the Tory party, it is quite a different point of view from that which we hold. We think that every man and woman, given equal opportunities, will give of his or her best and not try to dodge responsibility. I would appeal to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to remember the time when they were between 18 and 21 years of age and ask themselves the question: Did they resort to that kind of thing? I know the answer will be that they did not. If that is so, why not give the same amount of confidence to the other people belonging to our class who are between those ages? People who attain the age of 18 should be treated as having attained the standard of adults, because their needs are equal to the full grown man and woman. It is upon those lines that we claim that whatever benefit is paid to the adults should also be paid to the boys and girls between 18 and 21. That is our point of view, and I put it to the Minister of Labour that even he has admitted that the amount of benefit under this Bill which goes to an adult is not one that can keep a man decently. Having admitted that, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cut down the benefit in the case of young people between
18 and 21, and he is proposing to do this with the full knowledge that the amount being paid to adults is inadequate.
There is another point which I wish to raise, and it is in regard to a pledge which has been given to all insured persons. Previous Governments have admitted that insured persons over the age of 18 are entitled to full status, and that whatever benefits are paid to them must be the full benefit for those ages. The Government are now departing from that principle, and it is not fair to the men and women who have passed the age of 18 to have their benefits cut down. If the benefits have to be reduced, at least let us keep our pledges to the people who have already passed the age of 18. I placed an Amendment on the Paper providing that the limit should be further extended. I notice that the Minister of Labour has provided in the Fourth Schedule that the benefits shall operate as from July, 1928. I would like to put a question on that point. Seeing that the Measure comes into operation in April, 1928, what is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has extended it for a further three months to people between 18 and 21 years of age? Is it because times are so bad that he desires to allow a little time for these people to recoup themselves?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton)): The reason why the date is put forward to July is that that is the end of the insurance year. There is no other reason whatever except that this change should come into operation at the beginning of the insurance year.

Mr. TINKER: Then I stand corrected. My view was that it was being done to allow these people a little more time to recover. I would like the Minister of Labour to consider the case of families that are impoverished for the moment. In those cases there is no chance of the young people who are out of work getting any additional help in their own homes. We had a Debate yesterday upon the state of affairs in the mining industry, and it was proved that in many mining areas whole families were out of work. In those cases, there is no chance of getting any help for members of such families who are thrown out of work. If the idea of this proposal is that the
burden of reduced benefits can be borne by families as a whole, then I say that there are many families who cannot bear such a burden. What chance have those who are out of employment to live in decency on the rates allowed under this Bill? I contend that in a matter like this the same benefit which is given to adults should be extended to all those cases between 18 and 21. That is our appeal. We contend that Clause 2 and Clause 4 hang together and ought to be modified. The contributions should be the same in both cases. I hope the Minister will agree to our point of view.

Mr. E. BROWN: It appears to me that this Clause does away with one of the most powerful arguments from the Departmental point of view in regard to the Bill as a whole. The one thing to be gained by the Bill as a whole is that it will simplify administration very greatly, and that will be an immense gain. On the other hand, in my opinion, the introduction of a new class into this Bill seems to go a long way in the direction of nullifying the simplicity of administration gained by Clause 1 and Clause 5. When we consider what is happening with the Schedule, and the making of this new class, it seems to me that the administrative complications are going to be very great indeed.
In the administration of the benefits, the adults have to go to one counter, and those between 18 and 21 years of age go to another counter. When you are paying 2,500, 3,500, and sometimes 4,000 applicants in one morning, any hon. Member who has watched the process will know that those behind the counter have to work with extreme rapidity in order to get through the number of cases which have been put down to receive their benefit on one particular day. There is no doubt that the graduated scale of benefits which has been adopted against public opinion and against the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee will place a great strain upon the counter work of those who have to administer this Measure.
I think the arguments of the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. FT. Williams) were rather more thinly spun than usual. There is one point I wish to take up in the speech of the hon. Member for Beading. He used the argument that since these young people are young and
the risk of unemployment is less, they ought to receive lower benefits new in order that they may receive higher benefits when they reach 21 years of age, and later on in life. That argument might be applied to young men, but it certainly does not apply to young women. I think the most unjust thing in this Bill is that in the case of a young woman between 18 and 21 years of age you demand a higher contribution, and at the same time you give her a rate of benefit which nobody can defend either inside or outside of this House.
It must be remembered that in such a case a young woman will remain in employment for a much shorter period on the average than a young man in the same class, because the ordinary young woman looks forward to being married, and therefore the argument of the hon. Member for Reading does not apply to her. I think it is entirely wrong to separate the young women from the adults of their own sex. Whatever force there may be in that argument as applied to young men, they get less between 18 and 21 in order that they may get more when they are older, that argument cannot apply to young women who, in the normal course of things, will go out of industry in order to take on the vital functions of home-making. After reading the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, and after listening to the speeches which have been made by the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary in order to find a valid reason which would justify the segregation of this class from the whole mass of insured persons, the conviction has been left on my mind that no adequate case has been made out. If all adults were receiving the same benefit and paying the same contribution, it would have been better to retain the dual rather than the triple scheme.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think this discussion has been very valuable for certain points that have been brought out. There is this difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. We believe that a person who is unemployed should receive adequate maintenance, while the Minister of Labour and his Friends believe that a person who is unemployed should only receive partial maintenance. I do not think that, in making that statement, I am saying anything contrary to
the sense in which it was implied by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to point out that the Minister of Labour steadfastly refuses to follow out his argument to its logical conclusion, and he has not answered a question that has been repeatedly put to him with regard to these young people. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that a young person should not receive sufficient to maintain himself or herself? If a young person is destitute and has no friends who are able to give financial or other assistance, how is that young man or young woman to live? I think that before this Bill leaves the House we should have a definite answer from a representative of the Department upon that question. What does the Minister of Labour imagine is going to happen to the young man or young woman under this totally inadequate amount allowed for maintenance? What are young persons to do if they are not going to receive financial assistance elsewhere?
I would like to mention another point. To-day the discussion has ranged over the general subject. At a previous stage of the discussion I brought forward an Amendment providing that the full rate of benefit should be given to young men or women who are married, and who are between the ages of 18 and 21. I think the Minister of Labour might have been a little more thankful to the Members of my party for putting him in the way of remedying something which he now admits is an unfortunate position. He has taken a great deal of credit to himself for the discovery that there should be a further extension, and that none of us on these benches seemed to have noticed that there was an even stronger case for the young man who did not get married, but was seeking to maintain his mother or had dependants to maintain. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister made this discovery, and that this concession has been made. I believe that it will be of some little help to make this exception, so that between the ages of 18 and 21 these young people at least will receive the full rate of benefit.
On the general question of the institution of this class, I do not think that the Minister has given sufficient attention to the question whether this Bill is to be a permanent Measure, or only a tide-over till more normal times are reached.
Sometimes he has proceeded on the assumption that this is to be the normal provision of our scheme of unemployment insurance, but at other times he has proceeded on the assumption that the present period is an abnormal one. The question whether this is a normal or an abnormal period of unemployment has not been given nearly sufficient attention by the Minister in the discussion of the whole question of the institution of this class. If it be an abnormal period, then evidently, with the reduced benefit, there should have been something additional in the way of preparing and assisting all these young people to find a place in industry in the future. On the other hand, if this is to be taken as a normal period, then it seems to me that the Ministry is not recognising the tremendous problem of this section of young people, who will find it difficult in the future to get employment at all. There has been all this confusion throughout the discussion, and, without wishing to say anything nasty about the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, I must say that both of them have contributed greatly to it. Their own minds have not been clear—

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon Member is asking me, may I make it quite clear at once that this is intended to be a permanent scheme.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is intended to be a permanent scheme, but in a great deal of the discussion upon it there has been

the assumption that the time is abnormal, and a great deal of the argument in regard to the institution of this new class has also been governed by the consideration that in the future the number of unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 21 will be very limited, and that, in the circumstances of to-day, we are face to face with a very different problem. However, I am glad that at last this has been brought out so definitely. I want to stress the distinction between us in dealing with unemployment. We in the Labour party believe in full maintenance for the unemployed; Members on the other side believe that there should be not full, but inadequate maintenance for the unemployed—that somehow or other the unemployed must find other reserves besides what the State can arrange to give them through an unemployment insurance scheme. I hope that Members on the opposite side will make that plain to all the unemployed people in their Divisions and to the public generally, because I am confident that, if it is made plain, when an opportunity presents itself a great many people, who have supported this Government under the misrepresentations of the past as to what the Government were going to do for the unemployed, will not support them in the future. I would also say that I am glad that this one little concession has been made in this Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'who' in line 15, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 126.

Division No. 452.]
AYES.
[5.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buchan, John
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Atkinson, C.
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Balniel, Lord
Burton, Colonel H. W
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Caine, Gordon Hall
Drewe, C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cassels, J. D.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ellis, R. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bethel, A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Betterton. Henry B.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fermoy, Lord


Blundell, F. N.
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Briggs, J. Harold
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Frece, Sir Walter de


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope, Major William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remnant, Sir James


Gates, Percy
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Looker, Herbert William
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.


Gower, Sir Robert
Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grace, John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macintyre, Ian
Sandon, Lord


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hacking, Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hanbury, C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Skelton, A. N.


Harland, A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Malone, Major P. B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Captain D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hawke, John Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Storry-Deans, R.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Tasker, R. Inigo


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hilton, Cecil
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Watts, Dr. T.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Huntingfield, Lord
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hurd, Percy A.
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Iliffe Sir Edward M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Iveagh, Countess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jephcott, A. R.
Pilditch. Sir Philip
Wolmer, Viscount


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Preston, William
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Radford, E. A.



Knox, Sir Alfred
Raine, Sir Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lamb, J. O.
Ramsden, E.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forrest, W.
Lindley, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P.
Lowth, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew


Baker, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bondfield, Margaret
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Morris, R. H.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, Thomas
Hardie, George D.
Murnin, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hayes, John Henry
Owen, Major G.


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Day, Colonel Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dennison, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.


Dunnico, H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Edge, Sir William
Kirkwood, D.
Rose, Frank H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lansbury, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred




Scrymgeour, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Westwood, J.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Sitch, Charles H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snell, Harry
Varley, Frank B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Viant, S. P.
Windsor, Walter


Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wright, W.


Stamford, T. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Strauss, E. A.
Wellock, Wilfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Whiteley.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the fact that the Amendment standing in my name—in page 1, line 16, after the word "years" to insert the words "and are unmarried,"—is covered by a later Amendment which the Minister has put down to Clause 4, and which includes my Amendment and a little more besides, I do not propose to move my Amendment.

CLAUSE 4.—(Rates of unemployment benefit.)

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (1).

Under the ruling given by Mr. Speaker, it was understood that this Amendment and the following one, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder)—in page 2, line 26, to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "fourth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine,'—were to be moved formally.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'commencement,' in line 26, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 125.

Division No. 453.]
AYES.
[5.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Douglas H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cope, Major William
Hanbury, C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Atholl, Duchess of
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harland, A.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hartington, Marquess of


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hawke, John Anthony


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bethel, A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Betterton, Henry B.
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hills, Major John Waller


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ellis, R. G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Briggs, J. Harold
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C R. I
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fielden, E. B.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Frece, Sir Walter de
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Burman, J. B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Iveagh, Countess of


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jephcott, A. R.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Gates, Percy
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Campbell, E. T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Cassels, J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cautley, Sir-Henry S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grace, John
Lamb, J. O.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Christie, J. A.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Looker, Herbert William


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Penny, Frederick George
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Storry-Deans, R.


Lumley, L. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


MacIntyre, Ian
Preston, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


McLean, Major A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Macmillan, Captain H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ramsden, E.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Macquisten, F. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Remnant, Sir James
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Rentoul, G. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Malone, Major P. B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watts, Dr. T.


Margesson, Captain D.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Meyer, Sir Frank
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sandon, Lord
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)
Womersley, W. J.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Nuttall, Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oakley, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.

Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out the words
"commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "fourth
day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 128.

Division No. 454.]
AYES.
[5.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)


Atkinson, C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Berry, Sir George
Hacking, Douglas H.
Oakley, T.


Bethel, A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Betterton, Henry B.
Hanbury, C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Remnant, Sir James


Burman, J. B.
Hills. Major John Waller
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.).


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Ellis, R. G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warrender, Sir Victor


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wolmer, Viscount
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Womersley, W. J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Major Cope.


Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris, R. H.
Welsh. J. C.


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Edwards.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, after the word "that," to insert the words:

"(a) young men and young women who are in receipt of an increase of benefit in respect of dependants; and
(b)."
This Amendment has to be taken together with the consequential Amendment—in page 2, line 33, after the word "women," to insert the words" (whether in receipt of such an increase or not)."
The effect of the Amendment is to allow adult rates of benefit in respect of those young men or young women who have a dependant. A proposal was made in Committee that young men or young women should be allowed the adult rate of benefit if they were married. Any proposal of that kind seems to me to be too limited in one respect and too wide in another. So far as these rates are
approved at all there is no real justification for extending them where a young man out of work is married and has a wife who is in work. On the other hand, they are too narrow in one respect, because probably the case of real hardship, as I have indicated earlier this afternoon, is where there may be a young man who has a mother dependent on him. If I may repeat in very few words what I said earlier this afternoon, I was trying to think what would be the case of a young man or a young woman under this Bill where it could be said that a great deal of hardship might result, and it seemed to me that a case of real hardship was where there was a young man who had dependants, and particularly, shall we say, an aged mother. In the case of a young man with dependants, probably it is not so much a case of the cost of the dependant as
that his own personal expenses in these circumstances tend to go up, because he might naturally be expected to have a house of his own. For these reasons I have put down this Amendment, so that in a case where a man has a dependant in respect of whom he draws benefit, he should be allowed himself to receive benefit on his own account at the adult rate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 2, line 33, after the word "women," insert the words "(whether in receipt of such an increase or not)."—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
This question was discussed in the Committee stage, and we now move the omission of paragraph (c) not with the idea of bringing out any real differences of opinion but in order to get a little further explanation of the meaning of the Clause. The purpose of paragraph (c) is to alter the definition of "a dependent child." The Act of 1922, when this Amendment has been incorporated, will read as follows:
The expression 'a dependent child' means a child under the age of 14 years who is maintained wholly or mainly by the person entitled to benefit.
At present it reads:
wholly or mainly at the cost of the person entitled to benefit.
I understand that the purpose in making this proposed alteration in the Act of 1922 is to guard against those cases where a father claims dependants' benefit in respect of a child towards whose maintenance he makes no contribution whatever. If the Clause is intended only to meet that sort of case we should support it, because there is no case for allowing benefit in respect of "a dependent child" where the parent has really never fulfilled his own responsibilities. A case was raised in the previous discussion regarding children who might be in institutions, Poor Law institutions or other institutions, where the parent might be making what those who are responsible for those institutions thought a reasonable contribution, but which did not, as a matter of fact, mean "wholly or mainly maintaining the
child." He might be maintaining it to the limits of his capacity as determined by the authorities of the institution who had care of the child. If that be so, then I should hope that the Clause would cover such a case. There might be a hard case where for one reason or another a crippled child is in an institution and the father is not maintaining it except partially, not "wholly or mainly." If those cases are covered we have no exception to take to the Clause, but I am a little doubtful whether there may not be real cases of hardship arising where parents who are contributing towards the maintenance of a child in an institution up to the limit of their ability to pay might be deprived of dependant's benefit, although they would in fact, really me maintaining the child.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am advised that that case is actually covered. The object of the Amendment is merely to confine the right to the 2s. for the child to cases where the claimant for benefit is, in fact, spending the money on the child. There is no need to take up the time of the House in explaining how this wrong phraseology has crept in. It is merely a case of wrong phraseology. I am advised that supposing a child is in a Poor Law institution and that the father contributes toward its maintenance a sum of 2s. or in excess of 2s., the case is covered and he will be able to claim in respect of it. This is only intended to meet cases where there is no payment towards a child's maintenance or no payment of as much as 2s. towards it.

Mr. HAYDAY: I should like to pursue the point a little further, because a case has been put to me by a constituent as to the possible application of this provision in an adverse manner. It was pointed out to me that owing to housing difficulties and the father being unemployed and there being no mother, a man might go in search of work and might not be able to provide a full home for the children, and one or more of the children under 14 years of age might be taken care of by someone. The Act at present says "at the cost of." Such a case would be covered so long as the man himself provides for their cost. It is now proposed to insert the words "main-
tained by." Does it mean, in that case, that the child must actually be in residence with the parent? The right hon. Gentleman will understand the anxiety of people outside this House on this subject, where there is a housing difficulty, a man goes to seek work, there is no mother and he gets someone to look after the children while he is searching for work. The children are being maintained at his cost, because he sends on the money, but under the Amendment as a result of the insertion of the words "maintained by," must the children be actually in residence with him?

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think the hon. Member need be under any misapprehension in regard to that. If a man goes away in search of work and he is paying for his child who is in care of someone else, he is clearly maintaining it, and, therefore, the difficulty which the hon. Member has in mind is one about which he need have no fear. If he is actually paying for the child he will be covered.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I correct a misapprehension which may occur in the amount which should be paid? I find that it is 5s. he will have to pay in order to be regarded as maintaining.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I should like to put one question. Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that if a person has a child in an institution for which he is paying 1s. 6d. per week, on the present assessment, he will be deprived of the 2s. in respect of the child; or does it mean the difference between 1s. 6d. and 2s.?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would say this with reserve—no lawyer can speak entirely without his book—that in that case he would not be entitled to the 2s.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment as to statutory conditions for receipt of benefit.)

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
This subject has been fairly well debated already, and there is no question on which the House of Commons is
so unanimous. I was not present in the Committee when it was being discussed—certain circumstances led to my absence—but I have read the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT and I find that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. R. Hudson) and other hon. Members joined in asking for a reduction of the 30 stamps to 20. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) asked for a reduction to 15, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) asked for five, and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) asked for 20. The Labour party argued that this. qualification should go altogether. The point I want to make is, that from the hon. Member for North Battersea to hon. Members opposite there was common agreement that the 30 stamps' qualification was too severe, and in the circumstances ought to be reduced. I must make it clear that the Labour party does not support a 20 stamps' qualification. In the evidence submitted by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), they definitely said that they were not in favour of a stamp qualification.
But we have to take the Bill as it is, and the House of Commons as it is, and while we have endeavoured to get unemployment as the only test for benefit, while we think that it is the duty of the State to maintain a man if he is unable to find employment, and hope with another Government in power to put it into practice, we have to face the realities of the present position and do not ask that this view should be accepted by the present Government. We have tried to effect a. compromise between the view of the hon. Member for Leith and the view of hon. Members opposite, who ask for 20 stamps. I am sure the hon. Member for Leith will agree that while 20 stamps would not solve our problem, it would go far to mitigate the hardships which would be imposed by this Bill. What is the reason for this 30 stamps' qualification? The only reason is the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee and, I have no doubt, the Minister will try to find refuge there. It is true the Blanesburgh Committee recommended that there should be some form of qualification and that 30 stamps
came as near a qualification period as any other figure. But there is no reason for 30 stamps, or for 40 stamps; there is no reason for 20 or for 10. It is said that we ought to have some figure; and by a process of reasoning unknown to me the 30 stamps' qualification has been put in. To enforce this qualification will undoubtedly impose great hardship on people, and should be resisted.
There are two or three points which I am anxious to make. The first is that if this Bill is carried in its present form you will throw an undue burden on local rating authorities. In the White Paper which the Minister issued he states that he expects that only 30,000 persons will be thrown on the Poor Law as a result of these provisions. I cannot find out where he gets his figures. I have heard hon. Members, Liberal, Tory, and Labour, argue that if this qualification operates, hundreds, if not thousands, will be added to the Poor Law in their own constituency, and if we take the cumulative opinion expressed in this House I should say that the figure is much nearer 100,000 than 30,000. But whether it he 30,000 or 100,000, the Minister, so far, has not produced any convincing evidence to show that the number will be 30,000, and I consider that 100,000 is as likely to be correct as his figure. Let me take it at 30,000. Where will they be situated? The worst feature is that these 30,000 will not occur in the towns in the Midlands of England, which have been fairly prosperous for the past two years; they will not have to carry much of this burden. In fact, the whole 30,000 will be cast on two or three very bad areas, who at the present time cannot afford to bear any further burden. The comparatively rich areas will be able to shirk this responsibility and fling it on to areas like Wales and Durham, and parts of Scotland which are already groaning under their present burdens.
It is indefensible from another point of view. As far as we are concerned, we consider that there ought to be one test only; and that should be whether a person is capable of work, whether he has been offered a job, and whether he has refused it. If a man can prove that he is capable of work, that he is willing and anxious to work, ready to take any job that is offered, then we submit he
ought to get benefit. If this qualification of 30 stamps is retained, it means that men who have been out of work for two years, who are as anxious and as keen as possible to get work, will not get benefit. They are men of good character, unexcelled by anybody. Their search for work may have been diligent and over far distances, but that does not matter. The only thing that matters to the Minister of Labour is not their diligence in searching for work, not their anxiety for work, but whether they have this 30 stamps qualification. That is not a satisfactory position.
We have also to consider how far the present Poor Law figures will be affected. I have obtained figures from the Secretary of State for Scotland for my own local parish council of Govan, and I find that in 1924, when the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) held office, they spent on able-bodied unemployed relief, roughly speaking, £1,600 per week. A month ago, under the present Minister, it had risen to £5,500 per week. What is the reason for that? The reason is this, that the Minister has been casting men, who have been looking for work and who could not fulfil the qualification, on to the Poor Law. In this district shipbuilding and engineering are the staple industries. I know men who have searched for work morning, noon and night. Their characters will bear the strictest investigation, and they are out of work because of circumstances over which they have no control. Consider what has been happening in the shipbuilding industry—and I think this is quite to the point. Ships, built for steam purposes, are being largely displaced by oil-carrying vessels, and the old boiler makers, who used to make boilers for steam engines, are not needed now. They have become a thing of the past: This new mechanical invention has turned out these highly skilled and energetic men and displaced them by another kind of worker altogether. Many establishments on the Clyde have closed down one after the other, and these men have not worked for years. Nobody has suggested that they have not looked for work, or are not very keen to get it. They will take anything that comes along, sweep the streets, or take up labour of any menial task whatever, and then along comes this Govern-
ment, with this 30 stamps qualification, and these men are automatically cut out.
There is another case I want to put; it has not yet arisen, but it will. I refer to the town of Greenock, where shipbuilding and sugar refining are the staple industries. By the operation of the sugar subsidy, the Government have turned the town of Greenock from a fairly prosperous community into a derelict place, and if this new Clause operates it is estimated that within a few months the refining industry will be closed down entirely. What is to happen then, unless these men have seven months work in two years, which, when you add holidays, means close on eight months in two years? These men cannot qualify for benefit at all. The Minister ought to be reasonable in the matter. We think that the 30 stamps qualification is too heavy. Take the case of the miners. Yesterday every Member who spoke, including the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), stated that there were from 100,000 to 200,000 men who could never hope to get work again in the mining industry. What is to happen to them? Here are men searching for work, willing to be transferred from Durham to Nottingham or from Lancashire to Scotland or anywhere at all, but they cannot get work. Yet they are to be told that unless they get seven months' work in two years the country cannot do anything for them and they must become a burden on the local rates. That situation is terrible. To be chargeable to the local rates is bad enough, but I fear that they will not become even chargeable to the rates. What I fear is that the operations of the Minister of Health and Secretary of State for Scotland will mean that circulars, each one harsher than its predecessors, will come along and deprive these men even of Poor Law relief.
It is a situation on which the Minister ought to meet us. We are not asking for the abolition of the stamp qualification. We know that this is a Tory House of Commons and that it does not accept our views, but we say, "Let us have a qualifying period, but try to make it as easy as possible and not too severe on the applicants for work." We think 20 stamps should be enough. In reality the Bill demands 33 weeks' work. A man starts work in Glasgow shortly after the
new year. He cannot work seven months without entering at least two weeks of holiday time in that period. Suppose that a man started work now in Glasgow. He could not qualify without having at least a week at the new year, for which he would not have his card stamped, and another fortnight at the end of June or the beginning of July. In the seven months he would have, therefore, at least three weeks to add to the 30, which means that he would have to work 33 weeks in order to qualify. It is a terribly harsh proposal. The provision about "not genuinely seeking work" was in all conscience harsh enough, but here you have an arbitrary and harsher test. We think of the effect on the Poor Law authorities, but I am: more concerned with the terrible consequences to poor men who have helped make this country and its prosperity. It is a criminal thing to those who have helped to make the nation rich that the nation should turn its back on them. If the Minister cannot meet us in all that we have asked, I hope he will at least accept this extremely moderate Amendment.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
The last speaker referred to the mining industry, and I want merely to emphasise the point that he raised. The Debate of yesterday proved conclusively that large numbers of miners have been thrown out of employment through no fault of their own. When that fact is admitted on all sides it is unfair to penalise these men by saying that unless they can show 30 stamps on their cards, they are to be deprived of benefit. It means that the men will have no chance whatever of benefit, that 200,000 or more will be destitute, and that the poor rate will have to bear the burden. I appeal to the Minister on that one point alone, that for the time being and until the mining industry has been put once more on a proper footing or until this surplus labour has been placed somewhere else, this 30 stamps qualification should be abolished. At a time like this it is entirely unfair to impose this qualification on those in the mining areas. Coming as I do from the mine fields, I know the distress with which the miners are afflicted. One would think that when the facts were admitted the Minister would at least say, "Well, all right; for
this period and until times are normal I shall not enforce the stamp qualification." Then later on, perhaps in two or three years, when trade has improved, the qualification might be established again.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not desire to elaborate further the arguments I used for a lower rate of contributions when the Bill was in Committee, but I want to say one or two other things. It appears to me that the discussion between the Minister and those of us who desire lower contributions is really a, discussion between those who have hopes and those who have fears. I am generally on© of those who are accused of nursing excessive hopes, but in this case I am on the side of those who have fears. I want to say straight away that I am in favour of 15 or 20 rather than 30 stamps. I hop© it may be true that the Minister is right and that we are wrong, but at the moment I am one the side of fear. We are told that an optimist is a man whose face goes one way and a pessimist a man whose face goes another way. The Minister's mind goes all ways. To enforce this statutory contribution of 30 stamps inside two years at the present juncture, when conditions are abnormal, is to undercut the whole principle of unemployment insurance. Contributory unemployment insurance was introduced for one purpose only, namely, to rid the homes of our working people of the haunting sense of insecurity which was there before they were insured.
It sems to me that the effect of this arbitrary rule, at a time when there are 1,126,000 unemployed and when the only answer we have is that the Minister has hopes and that we have fears, is to bisect the insured persons into the secure and the insecure. We desire to have a lower rate of contributions because we desire to have fewer insecure and more secure employed persons. The matter can be stated in three ways. Those who get the 30 contributions in two years will be secure; men who get the normal rate of employment in a normal time will be sure of benefit. It will be a statutory right and to them it will be a great gain to know that as long as they have any ordinary chances of achieving the 30 contributions they are to be secure and not at the caprice of some Department or
Committee, but that it is their statutory right. But consider the other classes, those who are not now able to secure 30 stamps in the two years, and that other class on the border line. Consider the position of the man who has 29, 28, 27, 26 or even 25 stamps on his card. You have given him a paper right. He is within five or four stamps or even one stamp of that paper right, but because he lacks one stamp you cut a clean line between him and the man who has 30 stamps. You drive him into the ranks of the insecure.
You therefore undercut the very design of unemployment insurance. He is driven into the ranks of the insecure and the very thing for which unemployment insurance was designed, to lift the haunting dread of insecurity from the homes of the people, is rendered null and void. On the other hand, if the Minister's hopes are realised and we return to a normal rate of unemployment, even six per cent., then of course the range of persons driven into the ranks of the insecure will be smaller than the present number. Personally I desire the qualification to be 15 stamps. After a great deal of thought I have come to the conclusion that that is a fair test to apply. This stamp qualification is not now a guide as it was before. It is now a test, the basic test. Except in regard to finance, the Minister has kept the letter of the Blanesburgh Committee's recommendation, but in doing it he has defied the whole spirit of the recommendation, for the recommendation was that the permanent scheme should not operate until there was a normal cycle of trade and unemployment had dropped to six per cent., which would be 720,000 unemployed instead of 1,126,000.
The right hon. Gentleman keeps the letter of the recommendation. He is the fundamentalist of modern days. He keeps the letter and denies the spirit of his own Report. He and I differ about it, but that is my assertion. He brings in this Bill but he knows perfectly well that the Report was not designed for an abnormal time like the present. Those who represent distressed areas are much concerned about this proposal. We think it is bad economics. Whether the Minister's figure of 56,000, or the "Times" figure of 156,000, or the actuary's suggestion of 200,000 is the correct one, large numbers of men will be thrown on the rates which, in our
judgment, is the worse possible place for them. We think that is the worst form of economics that could be undertaken in a Bill of this kind. To put on the rates the burden which will be occasioned by these men being unable to qualify for benefit, is to allocate the responsibility of maintaining the unemployed in a most unjust, and an unwise and uneconomic manner. Rates are an addition to costs, whereas taxation merely comes out of profits. Therefore, the burden will be laid on industry just at the point where industry is least able to bear it and an unfair charge placed on the industrial areas. Since the whole nation benefits from our industries, why should industrial districts which have been hard hit for so long, have to bear the heavy weight resulting from this regulation? I think the Minister ought to meet us in some degree. It is a great humiliation to decent. hard-working men who have made contributions while they were in employment, that they should be driven to the Poor Law. Even at this late stage, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is reason behind our fears and, if he cannot concede us the 15 figure or the 20 figure, that he will at least agree to a figure of 25 and make it easier for men to stay in the insurance field and in the realm of security, instead of being driven into the ranks of the insecure.

Mr. HAYDAY: At this stage, one cannot go into the principles of contributory and non-contributory schemes. The tragedy which lies behind this Bill and the imposition of the 30 stamps' qualification, cannot be passed over lightly and cannot be dealt with by mere assumptions of figures. We must remember that we are dealing with human lives, many of which have become more or less derelict in the struggles of the last seven years. Certainly the present is the worst possible time at which to introduce a Bill containing a statutory condition of this kind. We know that it was found necessary previously to waive a stamp qualification and that, at the moment, eight, 12 or 20 stamps are sufficient to ensure benefit under the Minister's discretion. The Minister's discretion was imposed because it was felt that the circumstances surrounding employment were so precarious that large bodies of men and women would not be able to satisfy com-
pletely the statutory stamp conditions. The present proposal to impose a 30 stamps' condition is too harsh for words. The Minister in the White Paper assumes that at the commencement of 1930 there will be 56,000 unable to meet the qualifications and he argues that out of that 56,000 persons, many will be in receipt of pensions under the Old Age Pensions and Contributory Pensions schemes. That, he argues will bring the number down to 30,000. I have already made the statement that when the test was taken in April, 1927, covering the two years previous, if the 30 stamps' contribution had been put into operation and proportional percentages applied to the two months' file—then, even by the Minister's own method of approach, there would have been 138,000 persons unable to satisfy the 30 stamps' qualification. All the rest is assumption.
It is assumed that there will be prosperous times in the near future; that, before the full force of this Measure is felt, there will be a revival in trade and that between now and April 1930, there will be sufficient time for all those unfortunates who have no stamps to their credit now, to secure the qualification. That is speculating in futures on too serious a scale. It is speculating with the lives of people who have been long unemployed. The Minister said that it would be possible if the 30 stamps represented the last 30 weeks of a two-year period for a person—subject to the fulfilment of all the other qualifications—to draw benefit for a period of about 78 weeks. That is one extreme case. I put a case at the other extreme. Supposing a person can show 30 stamps and passes the test. If four or five of those stamps relate to the first quarter of the two years preceding the claim, that person cannot draw benefit for a period longer than three months. So that under this statutory condition you may have two unemployed persons applying for benefit. Both have 30 stamps to their credit, but the stamps have been secured at different periods in each case. The one who has 30 stamps, representing the last period of the two years, can get 78 weeks—taking the most favourable circumstances. The other with his 30 stamps, equal in value to the stamps of the first man, but some of them relating to the first quarter of the two-year period, can only draw 13 weeks benefit. Therefore,
he ceases to draw benefit with 28 stamps still remaining to his credit, after drawing 13 weeks benefit, while the other man can draw 78 weeks and clear off the whole value of his stamps.
It is true that these are extreme cases, but I ask: Will the great bulk of people be able to supply the 30 stamps and bring themselves within the period that will entitle them to draw benefit? That is the doubt. The Minister has expressed confidence, but his figures are all based on assumptions. The only way you can rectify the position with such a qualification is by transferring the 1,100,000 persons now out of work into the places of 1,100,000 persons who are in work. The latter will have their 30 stamps each and, when they have exhausted the 30 stamps, let them change over again. I do not see any other way of dealing with it. Whatever the figure may be, whether 200,000 or 150,000 or 138,000 or, even at the most favourable, 30,000, surely its magnitude is sufficient to warrant us giving serious thought to the consequences. If trade improves, as we all hope it will—because we can all be optimists to that extent—would not the Minister then feel more content and his Government more satisfied in the knowledge that at this stage they had passed a Measure which inflicted the minimum of injury and pain on a valuable section of the community who require sustenance and help in this crisis? Between now and the time when the full force of the Measure is felt, during this transitional stage, I hope the Minister will try to make it as easy as possible for the honest and genuine workman to secure benefit.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I wonder if it is too late to ask the Minister to respond, not to the arguments put for this side of the House but to the appeals which have been made from his own side of the House, and to grant some modification of this Clause? I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman realises that what he is now committing us to means not less but more unemployment. Even on his own showing, at least 30,000 are to be thrown out by the operation of the 30 stamps condition. I wish to emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that hon. Members on the Conservative side, including the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), have given vital reasons for a
modification of this proposal. I have been considering what it will mean in the case of Newcastle-on-Tyne. There, we have 4,000 who have contributed under the insurance scheme and who are now thrown off the fund. Taking the figure of 4,000 and the present unemployment figure at a round million, I calculate that, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, we are going to get another 120 cases to be dealt with under the Poor Law. If the right hon. Gentleman's figures are not correct and if the figures of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) are correct—or if we take a figure between the two, such as that given by the hon. Member for Sunderland of about 100,000 which is perhaps as nearly correct as any—it means 400 to 500 more cases upon the rates of Newcastle-on-Tyne. I have already reminded the right hon. Gentleman that able-bodied relief is now costing us £225,000 a year, equivalent to a 1s. 8d. rate, for men who were on the Unemployment Fund and are now on the rates. The added number which will arise from the operation of the 30 stamps qualification means another 3d. on the rates. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Gorbals have emphasised what this means.

7.0 p.m.

Every business man knows what a penny of the rates means. I was talking to one of our ship repairers the other day, and he showed me an estimate for a £l,200 job—not a considerable job, but a considerable one for them—which they had lost, all over a £10 note. Any Member who has any experience of the heavy industries knows that orders are going abroad all over a question of two or three hundred pounds, and that a penny off the rates might mean bringing these orders here. Now we have the proposal of the Minister that in April, 1929, he is going to put another 30,000 or—what is a more probable figure—138,000 more people on to the rates in our industrial areas—not the residential areas, but the areas represented by the hon. Members for Leith, Sunderland, West Nottingham, Gorbals, myself and others. These are areas which are bearing unduly high rates, and it is the duty of every one of us to protest, on whichever side of the House we sit, against this further imposition upon the local rates.

The right hon. Gentleman himself is receiving from all over the country protests against this unequal distribution of the burden of unemployment. He has given us certain modifications on different Clauses of the Bill, and we appreciate that. He has been amenable to arguments put forward and to some of our appeals, and I would ask him at this late hour to look equally into this matter to see whether he cannot respond when an appeal is earnestly made to him from his own side to reduce the stamp qualification to 24 stamps, and we ask in this Amendment that it shall be reduced to 20 stamps. I believe it would make a very considerable difference indeed as far as the throwing of further men on to the Poor Law is concerned. I add my voice at this late stage to the appeals made that he should, even on the Report stage of the Bill, give further thought to this matter.

Mr. DUNCAN: I should like to say a word or two on this particular matter. Having had at least 30 years' experience in administering unemployment benefit, I think what I say should have some little weight, although I am very doubtful it it will. The Minister of Labour seems to me to show a cast-iron mind in this matter. There is very little bending in the direction that we desire. I could quite understand a 30-stamp qualification if it were coupled with something else. To me, it seems a one-eyed, lop-sided arrangement that will not stand the slightest examination in any circumstances. What I would suggest is this: The Minister has been asked to consider this matter. Whether he will or not I do not know, and, judging by his past attitude, I do not think it matters very much. But if 30 stamps were combined with the percentage of unemployment existing at the time, and varied up and down according to that percentage, then there would be some sense in it. As it is, with a single factor deciding as to whether a man shall be a free man or pauper, it seems to me a one-eyed, cast-iron sort of arrangement. I believe it will bring very great hardship indeed to tens of thousands of people. It does not matter very much what the numbers are.
Everybody in this House knows that this Bill is not a Bill dealing with unemployment but to manufacture paupers. There is no getting away from that. I
have had some little experience of it, and particularly of men who have been working in Government establishments for years. Everybody knows that a great efforts has been made not only in this country but in all countries to cut down armaments and the rest of it, and there has been ruthless slaughter of men who have worked the greater part of their lives in Government establishments. Take places like Rosyth and Pembroke Dock. What is the use of suggesting that men who have been employed there have the slightest possible chance of getting 30 stamps in two years? We all know that these places are practically devoid of employment. Nobody in this House will deny that the effort of the Government is in the right direction in cutting down expenditure for military and naval purposes, but is it fair that the whole weight and burden of this cutting down should mean the slaughtering and breaking of men's lives?
I am speaking with some little feeling because I have had some of this business. I remember one period of six months' unemployment, and I can assure the House that many times the question of suicide crossed my mind. I am not at all surprised that in the times through which we are going many men have committed suicide, and if this proposal goes into the Bill there will be an increase in the number of people committing suicide, because they can stand the pressure no longer. I have had some little experience. In my own union we do not say 30 stamps in two years; we say eight weeks in one year, which is 16 weeks in two years. Some of the hardest cases we have had to turn down have been men who have worked for a number of years in Government employ. They have worked at a peculiar industry, which is not what one would call a competitive industry. They are fit for one particular operation, and it is almost an impossibility for these men to fit themselves into any industry in this country. It may be by the kindness of somebody they get chucked in here and there, but it is a tragedy to look round and see the men displaced at Woolwich Arsenal, Pembroke Dock, Rosyth and Enfield Lock—men on whom this country depended in the War to turn out the munitions, guns and rifles which enabled this country to win the War. There are some very sore hearts among these people.
Besides making paupers by this Bill, you are going to make some people take an infinitely keener interest in politics than they ever did before, and when the vote of these people comes to be cast at the next General Election, it certainly will not be for the Conservative candidates.
I do not know whether it is worth while appealing to the Minister. It seems to me, from my experience in this House, a waste of time to appeal. This one-eyed, cast-iron condition is one which you can neither bend nor break, and the human element is cast on one side absolutely. No consideration of a human character is given to the men who are trying to do their best. Nobody can say they are not trying to get work. We all know that the work is not there to be got. It is no use burking that fact. To put this condition to them simply means you are going to drive people to the Poor Law—a thing which every man with any sense ought to seek to do everything to prevent. It has always been considered in this country that there was a taint of disgrace about pauperism, but now, when we are driving tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands in that direction, the taint is being broken down and people are compelled, willy-nilly, whether they like it or not, if they are going to exist, to live on the amount they can extract from the board of guardians to keep life in their bodies. I do hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I suggest to him very earnestly and seriously that 30 stamps is a brutal thing and an inhuman thing. If it were based on a percentage of unemployment as well, then it might work, and at least work with some sense of justice to the people who pay these contributions to the Unemployment Fund.
Let me say in conclusion, that if this Unemployment Fund were a voluntary fund, I do not believe that one workman in 100,000 would contribute to it. This House has got these people in its grip, and they cannot escape contributing to the fund unless they get out of the country. The whole thing has been arranged by the uncontrolled, autocratic power of this House. It is administered under the control of a small body of people—the State pays the least, and the people who pay the most have nothing to do with the administration. It is totally undemocratic; it is autocratic in
the highest degree and we think there should be some elasticity in the system, and that the human element should be considered.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I should like to add a word or two to what has been said already from these benches with regard to this question of 30 stamps. My hon. Friend the Member for East Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Connolly) related what was likely to be the experience of towns like Newcastle, and one can readily admit that the condition, bad as it is, is bound to be intensified by the passing of this Bill, particularly with regard to the specific Clause under discussion. If that be the case in the large industrial centres where there is a diversity of employment, what is to be the case in the large districts where employment is practically of a unitary character, and where unemployment is of a most intense description? The constituency I have the honour to represent is at the present time carrying rates of 30s. 7d. in the £l, and there are thousands of unemployed men. When this Bill becomes law, there are thousands of those men who will not be able to find one stamp to their cards, never mind 30. It is no use talking about an extension of time, for an extension is of no value whatever.
Last night, we had a description of the curtailment of the markets of the world, particularly in regard to coal, and hon. Members can understand that under the conditions at the present moment you could give an extension of two and three years, and even then it might be impossible, and probably would be for men to find 30 stamps upon their cards. What is to be the position of towns like Merthyr Tydvil which, though a small town, has a debt already of £500,000, and to which the Minister of Health refuses further loans because of the town's indebtedness? It is a town where a penny rate merely brings in £1,000. Cities like Manchester or Glasgow or Liverpool could possibly bear this burden far better than small places like Merthyr Tydvil can. In Manchester, a penny brings in £26,000, and in Glasgow probably a like amount, and probably it is the same in Liverpool or Birmingham. But in places where a penny brings in £1,000, and where there is a terrible burden of unemployment, men are bound, because of their inability to comply with the Clause now under discussion, to be thrown on
to the Poor Law guardians. Therefore, a large amount of money must be raised on a very small rateable value where a penny merely brings in a small amount of money, and it means increasing disproportionately the debt of the poorer districts as compared with the richer districts. Under this Bill the poorer districts are being victimised, and badly hit—far worse than the larger towns.
What is to be the effect on industry? In my own constituency it is not only mining which is badly hit. There is a large steel works where for practically five or six years the works have been closed down, and work has been of a particularly intermittent character. There has been a month or two of work, and then the thing has closed down again under conditions of this description. Those works, turning out steel rails, a huge thing that belongs to the Quest, Keen, and Nettlefold group, must be badly affected by the high rates that are bound to be caused, and if the rates do not go higher, they cannot possibly come lower. That is the difficulty, but under this Bill there is no chance of any rate reduction. I do not know whether it is any good appealing to the Minister, but I cannot understand why this Bill contains so many punitive Clauses. If the Bill were directed against towns and communities of an alien race that had been handed over to us by a treaty following a war, they could not have been treated much worse than our towns and communities are being treated under this Bill.
This punitive method of legislation is of the most appalling character, and the local authorities of my constituency view with exceeding alarm the passing of this Bill. They have urged me to do all I can to oppose it. They need not have done so, as I would have opposed it without any urging, but they have sent resolutions asking many of us to oppose the Bill by all means in our power because of the terrible burden that it will entail upon them in the near future. If any words of mine could add to the very eloquent appeals that have been made from these benches, I would use them, but I can use no stronger words than have been used. This Clause is one of the biggest detriments to the recovery of trade in a good many areas that could possibly be imagined. We get from the benches opposite time and time again
disquisitions upon the extravagance of Labour majorities and talk about spendthrift councils and guardians. Will the Minister tell us what the boards of guardians must do? The old idea has gone, and even Conservative boards of guardians now shrink from what this Bill means, because they know they have gone as far as humanity will allow them to go in curtailing relief, but a further curtailment will be necessitated under this Bill if the Minister of Health still continues his intransigent attitude. I hope the Minister of Labour will yet see his way to do something to remedy the terms of this Clause.

Mr. BETTERTON: In this discussion hon. Members opposite have, with great feeling, put before the House the situation as they see it and as they think it will affect their constituencies. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) and others who have preceded him have regarded this proposal with regard to the 30 contributions as being punitive, arbitrary, unconscionable, and unfair, and as designed quite unjustly to punish a large number of innocent people. As a matter of fact, this proposal is nothing of the kind. It is an attempt, and a necessary attempt, to safeguard the other contributors to a contributory insurance scheme. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) gave an illustration, of which no doubt there may be more than one instance, of a man who failed to satisfy the 15 or 30 stamps rule, and he said that it was very hard, if he had only 14 or 29 stamps, that he should be cut out. Of course it is, but that applies to any rule. He himself suggested, I think, 15 in the two years or seven in one year, but exactly the same sort of hard case would arise whatever test you had. What the House has to decide is whether this scheme is to have within it the necessary safeguards which any insurance scheme must have, or whether the House wishes that the scheme should be little other than a pension fund and the recipients of it mere drawers of pensions.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely the hon. Member is over-stating the case. If his White Paper, on his own showing, only means 30,000 difference, surely the difference between a pension scheme and an insurance scheme is narrowed down to a very
narrow limit. The hon. Member is not entitled to have it both ways, and if his White Paper only shows 30,000, the narrowing of the stamps will narrow the 30,000 to a very small figure indeed.

Mr. BETTERTON: That was not quite my point, but the hon. Member also cannot have it both ways. I repeat that what this House has to decide is whether it wants a pension scheme or an insurance scheme; and, therefore, the whole question is not whether you shall have a test, but only if the test which we propose is or is not a proper and a fair test. The hon. Member says it is not, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, in both a fair and an impressive speech, if I may say so, intimated that in his view the 30 contributions test was too high, and he asked where the Blanesburgh Committee got the idea of 30 contributions from. As it happens—I do not know how far they were moved by this—they had a precedent for the requirement of 30 contributions before them when they made their recommendation, because, as the House will recollect, the 30 contributions, subject, I agree, to a very limited power of waiver, was the exact number inserted in the Act of 1924. I am not so much concerned at the moment with the fact that the 30 contributions were in that Act as with The reasons given by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) for inserting the 30 contributions in the Act of 1924. He said, on the Committee stage, in regard to the 30 contributions:
That is my guarantee that the person drawing the benefits is a genuine unemployed person who has proved in a certain period, by a certain amount of work, that he is the genuine person whom I assume him to be, and whom I desire him to be for the drawing of benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 19th June, 1924; col. 1827.]
Those were the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman inserted this requirement in 1924, and they are very much the reasons which are given by the Blanesburgh Committee for inserting the 30 contributions in the present scheme. Using very much the same language as the right hon. Gentleman, they say, on page 41 of their Report, that the scheme
must never degenerate into a so-called 'dole' or become a mere pension fund. From this fate it must be saved.
They say further down on the same page:
Thus at the worst our proposals could not shut out many, and they would only be those who had failed to obtain work in an average of 15 weeks out of 52. It will be conceded that in the generality of cases persons with so poor a record of employment could scarcely claim still to be in the insured field; that there is grave doubt as to the genuineness of their search for work; and that the exclusion of such individuals is only fair to the general body of insured contributors.
I confess that it seems to me that if you are to have an insurance scheme with any test at all of the amount of contributions, it is not a very high test to say that a man must prove 30 contributions within the last two years. One hon. Member opposite said, quite truly, that there are places in England and Wales and Scotland—and he mentioned Pembroke and Rosyth—which had been very badly hit through a changed national policy, where dockyards had been closed down, or where there had been a great diminution in the number of men employed, so that locally the effects had been very severe. The answer to that is that, sorry as we may be for these people, an insurance scheme is not a scheme on which they can expect to be, in fairness to the other contributors, pensioners for any prolonged period.
The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) raised this rather technical point, and I hope he will forgive me if I have not understood it aright. He said that it may be that in certain cases where the 30 contributions come immediately before the claim, the claimant will get 78 weeks, but that you may have cases where he will get a much shorter period of benefit, because the contributions have been spread out during a much longer period before he makes his claim. The answer is that, if the contributions have been spread out in the way that he visualised in the second case, the inference is that during that time the man has been drawing benefit while he has been out of work, and, therefore, naturally he had not got those contributions to his credit to enable him to draw benefit for a much longer period.

Mr. HAYDAY: The same would happen in the case of the man whose 30 stamps came late; just before he got his stamps he would be out of work. If these 30 were the last in two years, and
the other man's the first in two years, they would both be out of work an equal number of weeks in those two years.

Mr. BETTERTON: Except that where the man was out of work prior to the beginning of the period the presumption is that he was getting benefit during those weeks, but this much is clear, that where a man has the 30 contributions behind him at the moment he makes his claim, that would frank him for a period of 78 weeks.

Mr. HARDIE: In that case, if the applicant has 30 stamps when he makes application in November, four of those stamps were made in the first quarter of the two years immediately preceding, and he cannot have 78 weeks, because his review takes place in the first quarter of his benefit, and that quarter is added on to the two years. If he is working, his stamps then represent 26 and not 30, and he automatically comes out.

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. There is just this other point I want to mention, for I do not think sufficient stress has been placed upon it. The hon. Member for Leith and the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) both used much the same language. They said that this proposal ought to be coupled with something else. It is coupled with something else. It is coupled with the transitional period, for under the Clauses relating to the transitional period the man may have up to two years before the scheme comes into operation at all, and, if he is out of work now, and draws the benefit, he will continue to do so, assuming that he fulfils the conditions, as he is fulfilling them now, for a period which may be as much as two years. That should be, and I am sure it will be, of very great service in helping these particularly hard cases and cases to which hon. Members have referred.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What about men in my constituency whom I have quoted? Two years' extension is no use at all to them. They have been told that they cannot get jobs, and there is no work for them inside the next two years.

Mr. BETTERTON: Then we come back to the point with which I was dealing at the beginning of my speech. These men cannot become pensioners on an in-
surance scheme. In the words of the Blanesburgh Report, they are not "in the insured field," and you cannot expect them to be borne indefinitely on the scheme.

Mr. SHAW: I did not want to intervene in this Debate, but, after the last speech, I feel that there is no alternative. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out quite clearly that the Government will be sorry for the men but that they cannot do anything. I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically: What is he going to do with the 56,000 people who, he admits, will be turned out? Is there any proposal?

Mr. DUNCAN: They will eat grass.

Mr. SHAW: The absence of an answer shows that the Government have no proposal at all for dealing with these people, and I am going to try and demonstrate that the figure of 56,000 itself is based on such a wild assumption that it can have no foundation in fact. When I tell the House that the actual live register figures to-day are only, roughly, 45,000 less than they were three years ago, it will be realised that, taking these figures at their face value—and nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a true test—and not making anything of the fact that the figures are not strictly comparable, the Government have succeeded in reducing the unemployment at the rate of 15,000 a year. In this scheme we are taking unemployment at 6 per cent. I have been making a rough calculation, and, without going to more than one decimal point, the result I arrive at is this. With an estimate of 11,700,000 people insured, and with the present unemployment of 1,145,000, there is 9.8 per cent. of unemployment. Six per cent. unemployment means a reduction of over 400,000. Does anybody believe, can anybody credit that the Government, having reduced unemployment by 45,000 in three years, can reduce it a further 400,000 in a limited time? The whole thing is out of perspective, and we really do need an answer to the point that has been repeatedly put—what are you going to do with these people who are thrown out of benefit? Have you any proposals to make? Is there nothing that you suggest that these men can do or are you going to leave them to the tender mercies of the guardians?
It is as well that we should know where we are. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman put 30 weeks into his Bill because I did the same in my Bill has, relatively speaking, got nothing to do with the case. What really does matter is that the Government are responsible for this Bill. On their own showing they say that 56,000 people are going to be taken out of benefit when the Bill comes into full operation. I say that on these figures the likelihood is that nearer three times 56,000 will be the number. It says in the Actuary's Report, at the end of the Blanesburgh Report:
From certain data supplied by the Ministry of Labour I draw the somewhat general conclusion that the proportion of the total unemployment prevailing in 1924–25 which would have been disqualified from benefit by such a rule would have been about 20 per cent.
The conditions are pretty much what they were in 1924–25 so far as unemployment is concerned. If the Actuary's statement that on this figure the number of disallowances would have been 20 per cent. of the actual, it means 220,000 and not 56,000. How on earth can we calmly look upon this thing and be satisfied with a mere statement that it is a bad thing if this thing grows, but that we cannot have pensioners on the fund. We really are entitled to a definite statement from the Government as to how, if they are going deliberately to take benefit from these people, they are going to deal with them? Unemployment is a big enough subject on which the Government should have some comprehensive policy, and if they are going to throw people off, where are they going to throw them? If they told us plainly, we should know where we are, but we are told nothing. If we are to be told that this thing is being done for the sake of the other workmen who are working and for their protection we reply that this is monstrous. It is a monstrous thing to suggest that the workmen who are in work would consent for a moment to the punishment of their fellows who are out of work. It is not true, and the Government ought to know that it is not true. There is no more generous man in the world than the worker, and there is no man who would go to more sacrifice to help his fellows than the ordinary workman; and it is misleading the House—I am trying to use the word which is least
offensive—it is misleading, not deliberately perhaps, to give the House the impression that the workmen are being protected against those who have been unemployed for a long time.
In three years, the position has been, getting worse, and the 1924–25 figures on which the Actuary based his 20 per cent. are better from this point of view than the present position. Even now, when the basic industries, that were suffering from a great degree of unemployment in 1924, have had another three years, instead of 20 per cent. the proportion is probably higher. Really, the Minister ought to tell us frankly whether that is all the Government has to say. Do they say it is an act of God that these people will go off, and that it is unfortunate, but that there is nothing else to be done? If that be all that the Government can do, we had better give up arguing. The whole scheme is based on a callous disregard of the circumstances now existing, and the story that the Minister in 1924 did this, that, and the other is absolutely beside the mark. What the Minister in 1924 did was this. He tried to form a genuine scheme under which every genuine unemployed worker would get benefit. If it would help the right hon. Gentleman, I will read to him what I said to the House, so that the House shall be under no misapprehension as to what I was doing. Here is one passage where I was speaking of the benefit.
Consequently, I have decided to raise these figures to as high a level as I thought the House would give me, all the circumstances taken into consideration."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1924; col. 2047, vol. 173.]
That was frank, and the House knew perfectly well where the Minister in 1924 stood, but what does it matter where I stood then? What really matters is, what you are going to do with these people? Is nothing going to be done? When you talk of the Blanesburgh Report, one of the principal statements in that Report is that unremitting effort should be made by the Government to reduce unemployment. Have you carried that out? If so, let us know what you have done, for we certainly cannot see any effects. We shall vote against this Clause, and unquestionably we shall fight against it to the bitter end. I hope that the time will soon come when an unemployed workman will
be treated as well as a criminal and a pauper. At present he is not, and it is time that a change was made.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has had the whole matter explained to him in Committee, but it seems to have made no impression on his mind. He quotes the Actuary's Report with regard to unemployment in 1924–25, and he compares that figure with the unemployment now, and makes a calculation which is not correct. If you take the people unemployed in 1924–25, you have to consider what happened to their cards during the period beginning some time in 1922, and you have to consider the unemployment prevailing in 1922–23 in order to get the condition of the cards in 1924–25. The figures for the present United Kingdom were only available from April, 1923. At that date there were 1,778,000 on the live register, in January, 1924, there were 1,571,000 people on the register. You have to consider the unemployment problem in the period which is two years prior to the period of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking; the condition of the cards reflects the period of two years ago. In exactly the same way, what we have now to consider is what the cards will show on 19th April, 1929, covering the two years back from that date, and not the condition of the cards as they are now, covering the whole period of the coal stoppage, when the coalminers themselves had no stamps on their cards for seven months and when many other people in the heavy industries were also unemployed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and other speakers not to judge the cards as they are now but consider what the cards will reveal 18 months hence.

Mr. LAWSON: There is one thing to be said about to-day's Debate on the 30 contributions' rule, and that is that I do not before remember ever hearing a back bencher on the Government side defend the proposal. Those who have spoken from the Government Benches have in the main spoken very forcibly against the 30 contributions' proposal. The one exception is the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who always comes to us with statistics and elaborate arguments composed to his own satisfaction in order to justify this principle. There is at least this to be
said for the credit of the Conservative Members, that as far as I know there has only been one defender—I put it plainly, one time server—of this particular proposal. I do not think the Blanesburgh Committee ever thought that trade and industry would remain in the position they are in at the present time, but whatever they may have thought, whatever calculations the Minister may make, whatever the hon. Member for Reading may attempt to prove to suit his own economic theories, the fact is that we know there are masses of men who cannot fulfil the condition we are laying down as to 30 stamps.
I am not indulging in what is called sob-stuff when I tell the House of a young man living within two miles of my own home. In this case he was receiving unemployment benefit, but he was so tired of it all, wanting work, that he threw himself into a pond and was drowned—committed suicide. That was a fortnight ago, and only a month before that a middle-aged man who had had his benefit stopped went straight to a reservoir and threw himself in. Our people are tired to death of the present state of things, in which they cannot get work. There has been no disposition to take into account that section of the Blanesburgh Report which says very definitely that unemployment schemes ought to be put in hand in an active and business-like way, so that the people may have an opportunity of working. The Government know that men will not be able to get unemployment benefit through being unable to comply with the condition as to 30 stamps; in fact, I fear they could not comply with the condition if, as we suggest, the number were reduced to 20, although that would give them a slightly better chance. The men know they cannot get relief, and all that remains to them is either to get out of the country or to starve; and, indeed, it is not so easy even to get out of the country.
I know nothing more true than what was said by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). There has seldom been a more callous and brutal Government in power in this country. They know quite well that this proposal means death and starvation to a great mass of people. One would be inclined to think that hon. Members opposite would personally not do this, but they certainly are supporting a policy which is a policy
of starving men, of increasing hours, of lowering wages, of carrying out the good old Tory policy, in spite of Disraelian professions, of letting the workers who are unemployed, letting good men and good women, intelligent men and intelligent women, those who have given their best to this country—letting them starve regardless of the results to themselves individually or to this country. Perhaps it is too late to make any appeal to the conscience or to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have agreed, more often than not in silence, to support the Government in this brutal policy,

and I hope the time will come when at last it will recoil on their heads. To me this is no mere matter of party. It is not a matter of gaining votes, it is a matter of getting some real, human consideration for people who certainly deserve better of this country. I am sure that time will punish both this Government and this country for acts of the kind we have in the 30 contributions' rule.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 122.

Division No. 455.]
AYES.
[7.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Frece, Sir Walter de
MacIntyre, Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bennett, A. J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone. Major P. B.


Berry, Sir George
Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bethel, A.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hanbury, C.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nuttall, Ellis


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Penny, Frederick George


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cassels, J. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pitcher, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, William


Clarry, Reginald George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Raine, Sir Walter


Cooper, A. Duff
Holt, Captain H. P
Ramsden, E.


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Remer, J. R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Remnant, Sir James


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rice, sir Frederick


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Drewe, C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Elliot, Major Walter E.
King, Commodore Henry Dougla
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Ellis, R. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. O.
Shepperson, E W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Skelton, A. N.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Storry-Deans, R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Watts, Dr. T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wells, S. R.



Tasker, R. Inigo.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Rt. Hon, A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles, H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhither


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.



Groves, T
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. White-


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Benley.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).
The words of the original Act read as follow:
Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those which he originally obtained' in his usual employment in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
The Government Amendment to that Section will take away a guarantee, which the workman now has, that he cannot be employed or compelled to accept work on
worse conditions than now obtain for him. At the present time he is protected, and the Government propose to take his protection away. He will be compelled, I take it, under this Clause, to accept any work that is offered him in any district; and the character of the work will not enter into it in any degree whatever. There was a great deal of discussion about this matter when the Bill was in Committee. One of the main objections that I should take to this Clause would be that it would, to a very large extent, destroy the pride of craft. The average man, the skilled workman, does not care to be driven to a job in which his touch will be destroyed and his skill rendered to a large extent nugatory. During the
discussion in Committee, the case of the engineer was quoted. One can readily understand that an unemployed engineer, a man used to working to the thousandth part of an inch, may very easily lose some degree of skill by being compelled to accept conditions of labour which will destroy that sense of touch which has developed over a long period of years. Men who are doing finer work even than that may be compelled under this Clause to accept other jobs. There is the scientific instrument maker, the jeweller, who does exceedingly delicate work, and, I suppose, there are men in the textile trade as well. I speak as a craftsman myself, and I say that the sense of touch, developed by familiarity with a certain job, is a very precious thing to a man. A man's pride in his craft is a precious thing, and is something which this House ought to do all that it can to maintain at any cost, especially at a time when industry is being so eaten into by mechanical power and skill. Industry is being cut up and sectionalised, and the skill is almost being taken away from the workman and is coming to reside in machine more than anywhere else. This factor, which enters very largely into the lives of thousands of skilled craftsmen, ought to be preserved by all means in our power.
I regard it as a big indictment against this particular section of the Bill that it will do something to destroy that pride of craft which we should do all we can to protect. For that reason I am moving the Amendment. The protection which the workman now enjoys should be continued to him, instead of his being driven, as he can be driven, under this Clause, if it be applied, from his own district to a district outside, and compelled to take work which will injure his skill as a workman. That is something to be deplored. I do not wish to argue the intricacies of the case from a legal point of view, but the whole thing at present is exceedingly vague. On the Amendment, the Minister tried to clear up many of the doubts of my hon. Friends sitting on these benches, but I am compelled to admit that, from my point of view, he did not succeed. I wish, now, that he would make perfectly clear the particular point that I am raising. At this time, when this country is being driven more and more to exert all its effort and skill to maintain itself
in the markets of the world, we have, in a great many industries, the oldest workmen and craftsmen, who came in with the industrial revolution, and who have been accustomed and trained, and have inherited, almost, a traditional skill. All that is likely to be injured by the policy of this Clause. That is something against which we should safeguard them, instead of doing nothing except to take from the workmen whatever pride they may have left in their work. Thank Heaven, some pride still exists, in spite of all the shoddy work which they are compelled to do, and in spite of the cheapness of production. There is still a pride of craft, and an inherited instinct for doing things decently and well. I know that many workmen rebel at doing cheap and shoddy work; they would rather do the other kind. That was my experience when I was in more intimate touch with them than I am at present. That pride is something that we should very jealously safeguard, and I should like to hear what the Minister of Labour has to say on the subject.

Mr. OLIVER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the Minister of Labour will give us some guidance on this particular Clause as to how a workman will be protected under the definition of "after a reasonable interval." Will the recipient of benefit be told beforehand that he is expected now to look to other trades for employment, or will he be expected, as a right, to do that from the moment he becomes in receipt of benefit? That is one point on which it is necessary that a very clear definition should be laid down, because without it I cannot see how a man—say an engineer—drawing benefit can be safeguarded if, on any occasion, he presents himself before the Committee, and is informed that in consequence of, say, his not having looked in the mining areas where he might have obtained work in the engineer's department of a mine, he has neglected his duty. If that possibility be always present, any person drawing benefit will always be at the mercy of the officials of the Employment Exchange in being told that he has neglected his duty to seek an occupation in industries other than the one which it is customary for him to follow. I echo the sentiments which have been expressed
by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). In expecting many of the craftsmen to find work in other industries we shall be penalising, to a very large extent, the prospects of skilled craftsmen being able to resume their normal occupation at the earliest opportunity which presents itself.
I do not think that the Minister of Labour was present when I spoke on this matter in Committee, and I will repeat, for his express benefit, the effect that will be produced on a highly skilled craftsman in the toolrooms of a skilled industry. If such a man should have the misfortune to be unemployed and should be compelled to take a labourer's job, or to work at brickmaking, or in the stone industry, or should have to do any work consisting almost exclusively of manual labour, then afterwards, immediately he made application to any high-class engineering firm, the very fact that he had been labouring would make it almost impossible for him to be reemployed in that particular industry. In high-class motor car firms, in the machine tool industry, in the scientific instrument-making firms and in jobs of that character, the very fact that the applicant for work has had to accept an inferior position and go to work as a labourer, would penalise him in his prospects of being re-employed in those high-class branches of the engineering industry. Therefore, this particular Clause would penalise him very severely. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will either accept this Amendment or give us some clear definition of how it will be interpreted.
There is one other point. If a craftsman be compelled to accept a job in another occupation than his own, the effect will be that if, for instance, you make him seek a labourer's job, you will squeeze the labourer out of a job, or you will keep another labourer, who would automatically come into his own, out of that job. In consequence, there would be no net gain to the Minister of Labour by making this craftsman seek work in occupations other than those which he is accustomed to follow.

Mr. PALIN: I wish to add my plea to those who have asked the Minister to give further consideration to this Amendment. If this paragraph remains in the Bill I am sure it will create a great grievance when it comes to be administered,
and it will seriously handicap these people in their future careers. Sometimes we find that a carpenter or a stone mason comes into the transport industry. We find a great number of engineers driving omnibuses and motor lorries, but if you are going to take a warp twister, whose trade requires a delicate touch, and put him to hard manual labour, you are going to unfit him for a long time to come to do the work in which he is skilled. If you are going to take women textile workers and put them to domestic service; if you make skilled men do the work of bricklayers' labourers, you will find great difficulty when orders come in affecting their own trade in carrying on the skilled industries. I think these are a few considerations to which the Minister of Labour has not given careful attention.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the House would prefer that I should intervene at this stage in order to deal with this Amendment. I think the complication which has been referred to was made clear during the discussions in Committee. Since that time I have had prepared and put in the Vote Office a cyclostyle document relating to Clause 5. I asked the Whips of all parties in this House to tell their members who were interested that they could obtain a copy of the two Sections that govern this point in their amended form. We have to take Section 7 of the principal Act as amended, and as amended by paragraph (b) to which this Amendment refers, together with Sub-section (2) at the bottom of the same page as this Clause. I have had both those Clauses put together in this cyclostyle copy in order that hon. Members should have these proposals clearly written out.

Mr. PALIN: The copy referred to by the right hon. Gentleman has only just come into our hands.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I sent word early to all the Whips' offices that they might tell the members of their parties that these copies could be obtained, and I brought some spare copies which I handed to hon. Members on the benches opposite in order that these points might be made clear. I think it will make matters clearer if I suggest that any hon. Member who is interested should take a pencil and refer to paragraphs (b) and (c) at the bottom
of the first cyclostyle page, and note what are the alterations made in paragraph (b). The words which are newly added that affect this question are in the first line of paragraph (b), and they are "in his usual occupation." That is all, and it was just a slip that I did not have those words underlined in the actual typing. The effect of these two Clauses read together is that in his own trade a man will be able to refuse an offer of a job at lower rates than those which, having regard to his own past experience, he would have been entitled to expect. Under the Bill, he can refuse an offer in his own trade at lower rates, but after a reasonable time he may have to take a job in another trade, but then the rates must be the proper rates for the job.
If hon. Members will compare what is proposed now with the present state of things, they will find that, broadly speaking, it is not a disadvantage, taking everything together, to a man's craft, but really it gives greater protection to the craftsman than the existing law. Taking the whole of the conditions together, they increase that protection. Under the present law different conditions apply to standard benefit and to extended benefit, but under the new system proposed by this Bill there is of course only one kind of statutory benefit right through. Therefore, there has been, as it were, a telescoping of the previous standard and extended benefit conditions. On the whole, there is no question whatsoever that the net result is in favour of the craftsman, and upon that I have no doubt whatever. There is one small restriction which some may think acts to the disadvantage of the craftsman as compared with the present state of affairs. At the present time in his own district, so long as a man is entitled to standard benefit, he can decline any job at a lower rate than that which he might expect having regard to what he was accustomed to receive in his own trade. Under the new Bill, this protection is limited to jobs in his usual occupation.
That is the only way in which it can be said that the protection is at all restricted. I want hon. Members to realise how small is that restriction. It only applies to a man in the case of a job in his own district and even then he could
not always demand the actual full trade union rates if he was himself for any reason or other not getting the full rates before. Supposing a man is a fitter, he is not as good a workman as his fellows, and, consequently, is not getting the full rate of pay. If that man went to another job he could not ask for a fitter's rate but only what he was actually getting before. I know this is a very narrow restriction, but, on the other hand, the man gets this advantage. Under the Bill all unemployed persons without distinction have the express right to stand out for a reasonable period for a job in their usual occupation. Under the present law that is not expressly laid down, but under the Bill it is expressly laid down that all claimants have the right to stand out for employment at their own job.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I just intervene—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question afterwards, because I want to try to make the matter clear, and, if I break off, I shall only confuse it. It is not expressly laid down in law at the present moment, but the umpire, in interpreting the law, does, in effect, give, to those who are entitled to standard benefit, to a considerable extent the same advantage. That is the effect of the umpire's decisions, but this is the first time it has been laid down expressly in a Statute. The next advantage is really the greater advantage. Under the present law, if a man is on extended benefit, he may have to accept at once any job suited to his capacity, whether in the same occupation or in another occupation, or whether in his own district or in another district. Extended benefit will no longer exist under the Bill, and all claimants without distinction will get the same benefit, and will have the express right to stand out for a reasonable period for a job in their usual occupation.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: What is a reasonable period

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am coming to that. Under the old law, while a similar protection was given in case law to those on standard benefit, it was never expressly laid down, and for those
on extended benefit it was not given. Now everyone, who is drawing benefit—it will be all of one statutory kind—will have the protection. Frankly, without trying to make a party case at all, or anything of that kind, I think that that is a very great advantage, and for this reason, that, on the whole, the craftsman who has had much recourse to the Act tends in time, and very often after a not long interval to come on to extended benefit. In those trades that have been hard hit, it is very often the case that the craftsman is less able to turn his hand to something else, and, (therefore, is perhaps more likely to come on to extended benefit, so that it is he who really gets the greater protection, which did not exist at all before. For these reasons I say quite explicitly that, if hon. Members will read carefully these paragraphs as I have now had them stencilled out, they will find that a very distinct advantage is conferred upon claimants of benefit.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask who is to interpret the word "reasonable"?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is the point to which I was coming, and to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) called my attention a few moments ago. The person who will be the final interpreter, and who will make the case law, will he the umpire. I think confidence may be taken from the fact that, although until now the umpire has had no express direction in any Statute to interpret it in this way, yet, as a matter of fact, he has given similar interpretations in the case of standard benefit. Now, he is to be given the express duty under the Statute of giving a reasonable time. He has done it up to the present, in the case of standard benefit, and now he will have this specific direction to do it, and it will lie with him to interpret the phrase. I can only say, in answer to the particular kind of case mentioned by the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin), that I cannot imagine the umpire taking any other line than considering what has been the man's past record and what his trade is. I am not the umpire—hon. Members may be glad or sorry—but I can say at once what sort of line I myself should take if I were. I cannot imagine the umpire
taking any other line, and it is in fact the sort of line that has been taken hitherto. Suppose the case of a man who in his craft has a very definite skill of hand, which roughening his hands in another job would spoil for good. In such a case I should look to the industrial history of the man, and the nature of his craft, and should judge accordingly. On the other hand, if it were the case of a man who had been doing heavy work, and especially if his work had been irregular, I should myself, taking those two circumstances together, have much less hesitation in saying to him that it was reasonable that he should fairly soon find a job in another trade of similar character to his own, where his industrial quality would not be spoilt. If, however, I had to deal with the case of, say, a skilled metal worker, I should think a good many times before I asked him, particularly if he had a good industrial history, to go off and unfit himself for future work in the metal trade. I have put the matter before hon. Members as clearly as I can, and I hope I have done something to explain what is necessarily rather an intricate matter.

Mr. T. SHAW: The courtesy of the Minister in having this document prepared is fully appreciated on this side, and it shows the necessity—I am not speaking now in a party sense—that in future, if Bills by reference have to be drafted, they should be drafted in such a way as to show the old Clauses side by side with the changes, so that one can see in the Bill itself exactly what it means; and this would also be of advantage from the point of view of the Judges. I hope that in future the House will refuse to consider any Bill by reference which does not contain within itself sufficient material to enable a Member of the House to understand, by reading the Bill, what it means. To turn to the point under discussion, frankly I shall go into the Lobby against it, because I am not even yet satisfied that the man is not going to lose. One thing is certain, and that is that, as things are at present, the man drawing ordinary statutory standard benefit cannot be asked to take a job in his own town, either at his own occupation or at any other occupation, on wages and conditions that are worse than he enjoys as a worker in his own trade. That is an absolute certainty.
Paragraph (b), however, lays it down quite definitely that it is only in his own usual occupation that he can refuse a job on conditions worse or wages lower than he previously had in his job. That also is an absolute certainty. In the second case it may be that there is a slight advantage over the conditions that now exist with regard to extended benefit, but in the first case I am quite satisfied that there is a disadvantage. It is possible under this Clause—we will take the case of the engineer again for the purpose of illustration—it is possible for an insurance officer to ask an engineer who has been out of work for a few weeks to take a street sweeper's job at the trade union rate of wages. There is nothing to prevent that, and the only guarantee that the man has against being thrown out of benefit is the position under Sub-section (2, ii), which says:
after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which an insured contributor becomes unemployed as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable"—
and so on. The whole question is, is the man, after such period as in the circumstances of the case is reasonable, going to be as well off as he is now? We can only judge from what is taking place throughout the country in the administration of the Act. Let me quote to the Minister a definite case of what an insurance officer did. A man with a wife and seven children was offered a job 30 miles away from home. Everyone knows what the circumstances now are, and what the renter of a house has to pay. This man was offered a job 30 miles away from home, at a wage of 39s. a week—a man with a wife and seven children. Obviously, in the best circumstances that could happen, he would have to remove to this town 30 miles away, if he could get a house. As things are, the almost inevitable thing would be that this man would have had to work 30 miles away and return home weekly. A man with a wife and seven children with 39s. wages, and the case was forced before the Umpire! They were not satisfied with the Court of Referees deciding in favour of the man. How can we take these words, innocent as they are, as being without danger? Frankly I cannot.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the right hon. Gentleman would make a
great mistake because at present, as he says, an engineer on extended benefit can be offered a street sweeper's job at street sweeper's wages, but under this he could not do it. He would have the protection of the Clause unless there had been a reasonable period.

Mr. SHAW: There will be no extended benefit under this Clause and if the engineer had drawn sufficiently long benefit to be on extended benefit and was then offered a street sweeper's job he would be no worse off than he is under this.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, he would.

Mr. SHAW: Oh, no; because the only thing the man can refuse is an offer of employment at less wages than those ruling in the district. He could have refused the offer before with every chance of success if the wages for the job were under the trade union rates. If they were at trade union rates he has no protection against that. It does not matter what the job is under this Clause. If the trade union rate of wages is paid he has to go.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Under this Clause he does not have to go for a reasonable time. Under the existing law, if it is extended benefit, he might have to go at once.

Mr. SHAW: The whole thing then turns on the decision" as to what is a reasonable time. In spite of the fact that I have had the courtesy of this document and I understand perfectly well what the Minister's point is, I think it would be much safer not to leave things to chance. I do not feel that I can leave things to chance as they are at present.

Mr. POTTS: Unless the Minister makes the provision read "an offer of employment in his usual working place," I shall be bound to oppose it. It will have a serious effect upon the mining industry. The right hon. Gentleman has surface work in his mind. I want him to see how it will be applied underground. If a day wage worker underground changed his occupation at the request of the management, being paid the same rate of wages he is paid to-day, he would be wrong if he did not accept it. If he was offered a position at a shilling a day
less, he would be able to stop and he could obtain unemployment pay. Now let me come to piece-work. When we get to normal times—I do not see much prospect of it at the moment but I hope it will not be long—we shall have more than 600,000 actually working piecework. There is a large number in every mine changing places almost every day. A man may be working in a place that finishes to-day. To-morrow he may be sent to work at another place in the same district and may not be able to earn as much by 2s. a day or more. If he refused to work and claimed benefit, the employers could prosecute him and claim damages. They could assess damages at 10s. or 15s. a day or any figure they like. They are getting more than that in many cases. They can notify the Exchange that he has had work offered him and has refused to accept it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take out the word "occupation" and to make it "an offer of employment in his usual working place," which would cover the miner and make no difference to any other trade in the country. I think those words would help to establish our defence in a Law Court if a summons was issued.

Miss WILKINSON: I think the House is generally agreed that this Clause has a germ in it—something which has to be reasonably considered. Where you have a person who obstinately refuses to take what is quite a suitable employment merely on the ground that it is a different occupation, there would he very few people who would have any sympathy with them. I submit that an obstinate case of that kind is already amply covered by other sections of the Bill. In this particular Clause we are dealing with a very different matter, and I do not think the Minister in his reply has quite considered it from the point of view of the value of status to the worker. It is not only a question of wages and it is not only a question of the kind of work done, but it is a question of the status of the worker, which is of very real importance. You might take a boy or a girl who has left the elementary school and spent years in working at continuation classes in order to qualify for certain skilled branches of the clerical industry. They have a job where they are insured and a job which represents a definite amount of skill and a large amount of preparation. I am speaking
of members of my own union, the Union of Distributive Workers, where we make special provision for encouraging young shop assistants and clerks to take classes of all kinds in order to qualify for manager-ship. You may have girls or young men who are definitely in the running for becoming managers or manageresses of shops or heads of departments or heads of offices, and so on. That represents a definite part of their capital. They have sunk a good deal of their small savings in the necessary classes and examinations, and are definitely on the way to reaching a higher status. Then they become unemployed, it may be temporarily or it may be for a longer period. If they are unemployed for a short period the difficulty does not arise, but they may be out of work for six months, not at all an unusual thing, or nine months. What period is the Minister going to consider reasonable? The Employment Exchanges are subject to continual pressure from above in order to turn as many people off benefit as possible.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: indicated dissent.

Miss WILKINSON: I know that when I put it as crudely as that the Minister naturally shakes his head. I have no doubt whatever that, if it could be left to the Minister of Labour or his kindly Parliamentary Secretary and these matters were dealt with by them personally, the cases might be treated on their merits, but, in fact, whether the Minister likes it or not, great pressure on the Employment Exchanges is to reduce the number of people who are getting benefit. It does not seem to be possible to explain what is going on in any other way. If you like it better, let me say that the pressure is to induce the people to take; any kind of job. Let me give particulars of a case which occurred in connection with my own union. It was the case of a woman in a drapery department. She was a drapery hand in a co-operative store, well on the way to becoming first sales and manageress. She lost her appointment and was looking round for something else in the same line of business. She was offered a job as a cleaner. Anything more utterly inadequate or more utterly ridiculous could not be imagined. She refused it. It was a position as cleaner in connection with an hotel. Having refused the job,
she lost her benefit. I consider that the woman was perfectly justified in refusing it. You could say that that case came entirely under this Clause. The hotel in question was quite a good employer, but once having taken that particular job it would have been utterly hopeless for her ever to get back into the drapery trade. She had gone through examinations, and was anxious to become head of her department and to go higher in due course. She was a highly skilled worker and she was penalised because she refused to do something that would have meant throwing away all those years of training.
Let me give another case which occurred in my own constituency. This is the case of a man. He was passing his examinations, and hoped to become in due course a certified accountant. He became unemployed because his works had closed down, as so many have done in Middlesbrough. He was a very highly skilled man, quite young, and had not got out of the insurance limit. He was offered a job, I think it was in a sort of tarmac works, filling barrows with slack from the iron at the blast furnaces and wheeling it to a certain place in order that it might be made into concrete for the roads. He refused the job. Had he taken the job, he would have made it utterly impossible, unless he could have kept the secret very carefully in the district, for him ever to get back again into his own work. I suggest that in these matters the Exchange or the Umpire ought to have a very wide latitude. There is all the difference in the world between a man who says, "I have always been a little piecer and I shall always be a little piecer, and nothing on God's earth will ever make me do anything but this particular job." One gets a little impatient with that kind of attitude, because it seems as if nothing on earth will move such people, and it is often a kindly thing to get them to have wider ideas and to go to a new job. But those are not the people we are dealing with in this Clause. Here you have cases where skill has been acquired through painful years of study and examination, and where status is a very large part of the capital of the individual worker. I do think that is an entirely different case from the case that is apparently contemplated in this particular Clause, and I
suggest that the Minister might deal with it. It may not be possible to deal with in this Bill. When we have reached the Report stage, after the stormy passage which this Bill has had, the idea of starting new Amendments must fill the somewhat tired brain of the Minister with utter horror; but would it not be possible for him to consider it from the point of view of administration or the sending of circulars to the Employment Exchanges to call attention to cases like these which I have mentioned, which are not very many in the aggregate but do mean a great deal to the individual?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not look at this question from the narrow party point of view. I have taken the precaution of having this memorandum typed out for myself in order that I might the better understand it, and I do feel that the Minister's explanation has not quite filled the bill. The part of the new Sub-section which fills me with dismay is that part about the lapse of a reasonable interval. We have heard about the jeweller. That was the case which the right hon. Gentleman took. He imagined a world full of jewellers unemployed, and those unemployed jewellers are not to roughen their hands by going on the roads. But that is not a typical case. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Parliamentary Secretary certain cases which we have with us now and which we have had with us for a long time. I want to give the cases of 200,000 miners. What will be the "reasonable period" before these people are to be absorbed into industry again? Will it be to-morrow? Certainly not. These men will never get back into the mines. Nobody believes that the mining industry of this country will ever again employ the number of men who have been employed in the past. With these people it will be quite impossible in a very short space of time, even if they have accomplished the miracle of having 30 stamps on their cards, to fulfil these statutory conditions, because within a day or two, not the Umpire as the right hon. Gentleman says but the insurance officers will be able to say: "Here is a job, in another part of the country, and in an entirely different occupation. If you do not accept this job, you must go off benefit." They are perfectly entitled to say that because a "reasonable period" is a period which in the circumstances of the case appears reasonable. It is not
reasonable to believe that all the unemployed miners are going to be re-employed. in the mines. Therefore, there is every reason why that period should be made very short; and I am afraid it will be, and that you will have a number of jobs used as a decoy to get these men thrown out of unemployment insurance benefit.
Take the shipbuilding centres, where you have platers and riveters, and all kinds of shipyard workers, who have not been able to do a day's work for two years, three years, four years, and as long as five years. Is it reasonable to suppose that they are likely to be employed in a short space of time? Obviously not; and the Employment Exchange official will be able to say after two or three days' unemployment, "There is not the remotest prospect of your being employed in the shipyards again, you must become an agricultural worker, or a street sweeper." The man who objects will be deprived of benefit if in the view of the Exchange officer the period is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. This is a very serious state of affairs. In the determination of years the Minister is going to have it both ways. First of all he has the stamp qualification, which these people cannot fulfil, and if they can fulfil it he will be able to get rid of them by offering them jobs elsewhere, which all of them could not possibly accept. He will thus be enabled to deprive them of benefit. The truth is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that you have two kinds of benefit, and two kinds of conditions are attached. In the case of standard benefit those conditions are more advantageous to the worker than in the case of extended benefit. Now we are telescoping—I use the word of the right hon. Gentleman—the two kinds of benefit and also telescoping the conditions, which means that although in certain respects there is an adequate protection to the worker the net result of the new conditions is that they prove to be very injurious to the worker.

Mr. BETTERTON: Not to the man on extended benefit.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not the point. To-day you have a large number of people on extended benefit. We think there ought to be more; but the point is
this, that you are going to abolish extended benefit and by telescoping the benefits and the conditions applicable you are, in fact, going to offer statutory conditions for all benefits inferior to those which obtain for statutory benefit to-day. That is my contention, and in the industrial circumstances of to-day this Sub-section (2, ii) is bound to operate to the disadvantage of the worker. This is a proposal for the compulsory mobility of labour. This is the way in which the Minister of Labour is trying to carry into effect the wishes of certain members of the Blanesburgh Committee, expressed on pages 26 and 27 of the Report, where some of the Members say how excellent it would be to drive unemployed workers at less than the standard rates into new trades. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that this form of mobility of labour, utilising the lash of refusing unemployment benefit to these people is a cruel and inhuman form of mobility and it is the clumsiest way of carrying it into effect. The State has no right to drive a man into another occupation unless it is prepared to say they will give him opportunities of training himself for that occupation. Those opportunities are not given.
One can see what will happen; the same kind of thing has happened in the mining industry. Men have been sent from Durham into Nottinghamshire, where there are no houses for them to live in. It is all very well to offer a man a job in another occupation, at a distance, and leave him to take care of himself. Then, when he gets there, he has to go into lodgings, to be separated from his wife and children because no house is available for him. Yet this is what is going to be done under this particular scheme. If the Government wants to tackle the problem of the mobility of labour—and I think it should be tackled at once, as it is one of the fundamental industrial problems of to-day—it is not going to be tackled by driving men into other occupations by refusing them benefit in their own, but by the expanding industries sitting down together, trade unions and employers' associations, to consider the proper recruitment of men in those trades.

9.0 p.m.

It can only be done scientifically by taking those trades which are going to suffer under this provision, and mining
is a case in point, and getting the people, employers and workers, to consider in what way they can dispose advantageously of their surplus labour. This would be a policy with some foresight and insight in it, but the present proposal is the most brutal and callous way of effecting the mobility of labour. I am only sorry that we have arrived at such a late stage of this Bill without this Clause having been fully discussed. This is the Clause which the Prime Minister tells us we discussed for 29 hours in Committee. We should still be discussing it to-day if we want to get down to what is really at the bottom of these new statutory qualifications. I am prepared to admit that in some respects there is an added protection, but having regard to the economic circumstances of to day, Sub-section (2, ii) with power put into the hands of the officials of the Ministry—this is to be dealt by them first before it goes to the umpire-is going to operate in a way which will be very injurious to large numbers of people in the big depressed industries, the basic industries, of the country. There is this additional point. This is going to be used to drive people out of insurable employment into uninsurable employment.

Mr. BETTERTON: I am quite sure the hon. Member wishes to be quite fair in the matter, and he will realise that it is the Court of Referees and the Umpire who will have the final decision in the matter.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have admitted that. The point I want to make is this. This will be used to drive people out of insurable occupations into uninsurable occupations. How do we know that in the future a miner is not going to be offered a job on the land; and once he is offered a job on the land he is outside the unemployment insurance scheme. If he wants to return to insurable occupation he has to start de novo, although he may have been an insured person for years. It has been used already, particularly in the case of women, with great effect. The great social problem of the middle classes to-day is the question of the domestic servant. This is a glorious opportunity for increasing the supply of domestic servants. It is perfectly true that thousands of girls on extended bene-
fit, whatever their trade—some of them in my own constituency are skilled weavers who know nothing about domestic service—have been driven into domestic service by the operation of the qualifications for extended benefit, and this is going to be used more in the future because it will apply to all benefit. Under this the Minister will be perfectly entitled, when a girl has been out of work for a reasonable time—in many industries no one can tell what a reasonable time is—to drive her into domestic service. That is operating to-day.

Mr. BETTERTON: Surely the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. If a man or woman has had extended benefit he or she is now bound at once to take a job suitable to his or her capacities. Under this Clause they have the safeguard that they cannot be required to take another job until a reasonable period has elapsed.

Mr. MARCH: What is a reasonable period?

Mr. BETTERTON: That depends in each case on the Court of Referees and the Umpire.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not my point. On extended benefit you can drive people into any job; I know that. But in future all benefit is to be statutory benefit, and people who are receiving statutory benefit can after a reasonable time, in a way that they cannot today, be driven into other occupations. In the case of women, where there is a large sphere of work which is not within the four corners of the Act, this may prove to be a means and a rather cruel means of driving people out of insurable occupations into uninsurable occupations. When he made his very lucid explanation of Clause V of the Act of 1920, as now amended, the Minister did not bring out these points. But these are the essential points to us. That is why, whatever the Minister Fays now, we really shall have to go into the Division Lobby against the Clause, admitting that in certain respects it is better, but fearing the possibilities and knowing what will happen once these new statutory conditions are put into effect.

Mr. STEPHEN: I feel a little bit anxious in regard to this provision and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary
to take note of the fact. The governing sentence is that a man is genuinely seeking work but unable to obtain suitable employment. The governing statutory condition is suitable employment. The definition of "suitable employment" under the Bill is limited in a way different from that under the 1920 Act. It is limited in two ways. He need not take employment in his usual occupation in his own district at lower pay than he has received habitually; or, secondly, he need not take employment in his usual occupation in another district at a rate of wages lower than the standard. Those are the two limiting-conditions defining the words "suitable employment," but only defining suitable employment to a certain extent. "Any other kind of employment that is not in his usual occupation" may be deemed by the insurance officer to be suitable employment. For example, gardening might be offered to an engineer. The insurance officer might consider that that was suitable employment. The only limitation of suitable employment is this reference to his usual occupation in his own or other districts. Then comes Sub-section (2, ii), which says:
after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which an insured contributor becomes unemployed as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than employment in the usual occupation of the insured contributor.
That is a provision that definitely allows for change from his usual occupations to some other occupation. But before that there is nothing to prevent the man being compelled to accept other employment than his usual occupation, under the rule that it is suitable employment. If you are going to have two ways and there is going to be a certain period, what is considered a reasonable period by the Court of Referees and the Umpire before the individual can be compelled, I would like it to be put a little more clearly than it is now. I ask the Minister to consider that matter when the Bill goes to another place, if it is not possible to make the matter clear here. This is what will happen: Suppose a man goes to the Exchange, and is unemployed. The insurance officer says to him, "You can have employment at So-and-so. You may go to Such-and-such a place." He replies,
"But I am an engineer, and that is not suitable employment for me. It is a different occupation from that to which I have been accustomed." The insurance officer says, "Oh, this is suitable employment, and you will be quite capable of doing it." The man can turn to him and say, "Yes, but under the Act of 1927 I am entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (2, ii), and am entitled to have the Court of Referees and Umpire decide whether I shall have to go and whether there has been a reasonable time elapsed or not."
If the man took up that position I dare say the Insurance Officer would recognise it and would assist him in going to the Court of Referees and the Umpire; but that is on the assumption that the individual concerned, who has gone to the Exchange, has got to the bottom of the meaning of this admittedly very complicated provision. But suppose the officer tells the man to go to this other job, and the man goes because he does not know that he has the right to refuse until a reasonable time has passed. What I am anxious about is that there should be better protection than that which is provided here for the man who is not skilled in getting to the meaning of the Bill as it is now. The difficulty might be met by a definite instruction from the Ministry to the Insurance Officers throughout the country that every man is to have this matter made perfectly plain to him, and that a man need not go to another job until the Court of Referees had decided. If that were done, it would be something, but I am anxious as to what meaning may be taken out of this provision. It would seem to be quite possible for the Court of Referees if a man has refused what they say is suitable employment, in a different occupation, to hold that there had not been any reasonable time. But there is nothing to say that there must be reasonable time. Both parties can go into the Court of Referees to have a dispute decided, but the Court of Referees may say to a man that Clause 5 (2, ii) does not necessarily mean that there is to be any definite amount of time. They may say that the definite amount of time is something extra which is not necessarily entailed—

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member has any doubts about this matter I can assure him that, in the view of our
advisers, at any rate, there is no doubt at all that Clause 5 (1, b) is governed by Clause 5 (2, ii). There is no question whatever about that, and it seems to answer the hon. Member's point.

Mr. STEPHEN: I quite recognise that Clause 5 (1, b) is governed by the part which begins:
The following provision shall have effect in relation to the said statutory conditions.
I still maintain, however, that the words "suitable employment" do not necessarily involve a fixed period of time and the Court of Referees may claim that this provision gives them definite power to say to a man that in a certain period of time he is to change from one occupation to another. Sub-section (2) (ii) does not necessarily mean that the

man is to get the advantage of a period of time. However, the Parliamentary Secretary assures me that it is not intended in that way. There is the other point that it is of the utmost importance that every individual concerned should know that he can go to the Court of Referees and that the court can decide what is the proper period of time in his case. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that cases constantly arise in connection with the present administration which show the importance of making these points as plain as possible and bringing home to people what are their rights.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 114.

Division No. 456.]
AYES.
[9.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fanshawe, Captain G D.
Iveagh, Countess of


Atholl, Duchess of
Fermoy, Lord
Jephcott, A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kindersiey, Major G. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forrest, W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bennett, A. J.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Knox sir Alfred


Berry, Sir George
Fraser. Captain Ian
Lamb, J. Q.


Bethel, A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Betterton, Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon George Abraham
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Briggs, J. Harold
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacIntyre, Ian


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Guinness Rt. Hon Walter E.
McLean, Major A.


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston Captain D W
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Malone, Major P. B.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Caine, Gordon Hall
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Margesson, Captain D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harrison G J C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hawke, John Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cope, Major William
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nuttall, Ellis


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Oakley, T.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hills, Major John Walter
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hilton, Cecil
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pennefather, Sir John


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holt Captain H. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Dixey, A. C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pilcher, G.


Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Preston, William


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Raine, Sir Walter


Ellis, R. G.
Huntingfield, Lord
Ramsden, E.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Remer, J. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Remnant, Sir James
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Watts, Dr. T.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Walls, S. R.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Storry-Deans, R
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Salmon. Major I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tasker, R. Inigo
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Tinne, J. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Shepperson, E. W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Captain Viscount Curzon.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
MacLaren,. Andrew
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March, S.
Westwood, J


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)

Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "whom," in line 40, to the end of the Clause.
In 1924 we altered Section 8 of the principal Act in order to equalise in some measure the responsibility for creating a trade dispute. The first part of the Section said that the men who were responsible for a dispute, or the insured person who participated in a trade dis-
pute, or financed it or were directly interested in it, could not receive unemployment benefit from the unemployment fund. The latter part of the Section dealt with the employers who were responsible for a stoppage because they had contravened the terms or arrangements in any district, or even in a national sense. This Bill seeks to eliminate the latter part of that Section and make it much easier for the employers to break existing agreements, but still penalise the workmen for anything that they may do in that particular connection.
We made an attempt in the Committee stage to convince the Minister that we were right in our contention, and that the present law ought to be allowed to stand. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the case that we put, pointed out that Clause 6 of this Bill would not alter the situation in any respect from the present state of the law. He said on Friday last that in the case of any particular dispute in the future, under this Clause the men would not be penalised, because their places could not be filled by other people. He said, as a matter of fact, it was an injustice really to the employers, and further, that if it should be that men who were unemployed and were receiving unemployment insurance benefit were offered the work of these men who were engaged in a trade dispute and they refused it, their unemployment benefit would still continue. He argued that this new Clause was bringing about an equality between the insured persons and the employers which had not previously existed. The right hon. Gentleman said the present law was giving the workmen a great advantage over the employers, and that in reality, to put the two on an equality, what really ought to happen was that although the workmen were prevented from receiving unemployment benefit when participating in a trade dispute, the employers ought to be able to offer their places to other workmen and not to keep those places vacant as happens to-day.
I want to cite an actual case to the Minister, in order to show him at least that this new Clause 6 is going to have a very much different effect on the situation in the country from what the existing law has at the moment. I have an actual case in my own division where a colliery firm owning two collieries has for the past 30 years always carried out district, county and national arrangements. It may be a coincidence—I do not know—but it is singular that after this Bill had been printed and circulated these owners placed on the pit bank a notice that from a certain day the pit could only continue to remain open provided the workmen would agree, not to the 89 per cent. on their basis, in keeping with the district and county arrangement, but provided they were prepared to agree to 50 per cent. on their basis, instead of 89 per cent. It was put in
another form, and it was said that if the men wanted to continue work at these two collieries, then in future at the end of a week, when they get their pay slip, there will be one-fifth deducted from: the total, which will equal the arrangement of the reduction of 39 per cent. from the 89 per cent. to the 50 per cent. on the basis, that is to say, that the men at these two collieries had an offer of work provided that they were prepared to work five days, and draw four for themselves, and give the employers the fifth.
This is one of the effects that this particular Clause will have. The Minister, on Friday, said, as his main argument, that trade agreements and conditions of labour ought not to be brought before the umpire, and that in case of disputed benefit the umpire, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, ought not to be called upon to interpret whether the trade agreement had been broken or had not been broken and that that was really a matter for an Industrial Court. I want to say quite frankly that whether it is a matter for an Industrial Court or not, in the case of disputed unemployment benefit it is imperative that the umpire, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, should have before him the whole of the facts in order that he may come to a right decision as to whether the men are right or the employers are right. I have cited an actual case which has happened since this Bill came before the House, and if the Clause be allowed to stand, it means that a district arrangement in future under this Bill will never be secure and will not be safe under the law. What will happen will be that in a district where employers have already broken a district arrangement, other employers will find that they have to compete against a firm that is being allowed by this process to reduce wages and further to lower the workpeople's standard of life, and those other employers will say, "If we do the same, we are protected under the new Act, and we will do the same because we have to compete in this district with other employers who are doing it." It is a very dangerous weapon that the right hon. Gentleman is putting into the hands of the employers, a weapon that neither trade unionism nor anything else can stand up against, because it gives employers the power to offer men low
wages and bad conditions, knowing that it will be impossible for the men to stand out, because they know they will be refused benefit and that the guardians cannot pay the same out-relief under the stringent directions of the Minister of Health as they would like to do. You will thus set up throughout the country a similar competition between individual firms to that which exists with regard to our foreign trade to-day.
Knowing that the Minister of Labour prides himself upon being a strong advocate of industrial peace, I want to say to him very frankly that the effect of this Clause will be to breed industrial unrest and, to a greater extent than ever before, to create chaos among the working classes of this country. This Clause will enable the worst type of employer to break all kinds of district arrangements, knowing that he has the protection of the Clause to prevent the men securing unemployment benefit. It will create an unhealthy and unnatural competition, it will increase the possibility of trade disputes, and it will arouse industrial enmity rather than promote industrial peace. For these reasons, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment and to prevent something which he himself probably does not see at the moment, but which we can see. If the insertion of this Clause will not, as he said last Friday, alter the present law, let Kim accept our Amendment and allow the present law to operate, in order that our people may have a fair opportunity in the event of trade disputes arising.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I want to quote a similar case to that quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley). If, as my hon. Friend says, the Amendment makes no alteration in the existing law, there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept it. This Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said on the Second Reading, contains more than one instance where the right hon. Gentleman himself put more than a little bit of grit into the wheels of industrial negotiation, and if there is one thing more than another that the right hon. Gentleman should try to avoid, it is
creating unnecessary competition and intensifying the difficulties that now exist. At the particular colliery at which I had the good fortune or the misfortune to work for so many years, we had an experience similar to that quoted by my hon. Friend. In 1914, 1915, and 1916, for two and a-half years, we persisted in trying to build up a list of prices for work done which would last for the life of that colliery, and after lengthy and costly negotiations our prices were finally arranged. The terms were carried out until a recent year, when an opportunity was seen by the owners of the colliery to take advantage of the situation which then presented itself, and they did not hesitate, realising that no unemployment pay would be available and that the guardians would not be willing to grant assistance to men who refused to accept their employers' conditions, to post a notice at the pithead intimating that on and from a certain date, unless the workmen were willing to continue work on terms and conditions which the employers themselves laid down, the colliery would be closed and the whole of the men turned on the street. In such circumstances the workmen had no alternative but to accept the inevitable and tremendous reduction in the terms originally arranged between both parties.
As my hon. Friend has truly said, if employers are going to be allowed to take undue advantage of this Clause, it will be a continuance of "Beggar my neighbour," for if one colliery company can reduce the pay rates for its employés, it must be obvious to every Member that other colliery companies will be obliged, if they are to have an equal chance of competing with their neighbours, to insist upon similar reductions. It seems to me that this is going to give a further opportunity for the sinners to be allowed to control the saints in the industrial life of the country. Other Clauses in the Bill, where, for instance, the young men are going to be pitted against older men, are mot going to help the relations between employers and employed, nor are they going to help us to reach that state of industrial peace that so many people think is desirable in this country. This Bill ought in no circumstances to make industrial relationships any worse than they are now, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to offer the slightest loophole for any unscrupulous
employers to make it more difficult for decent employers, who would willingly do so, to abide by terms and conditions that have been arranged over a long period of time. This Clause as it stands is a further piece of grit entering our industrial machinery, and it should be amended in order, first, to allow workpeople to have a fair and equitable chance when wages and conditions are under review, and in order, secondly, to prevent any intensification of the bitterness and hatred that exist at the moment. The Government should at least allow the Bill to go through in such a form that it will in no way endanger what possibilities there may be at the moment of decent relationships existing.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have listened with great care to the careful and moderate speeches with which this Amendment was put before the House. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), who moved it, says that this Clause as it stands puts an unfair weapon into the hands of the employer. In 1920 Unemployment Insurance had a general application with the exception of three main groups of people. Prior to 1912 it applied to no one, but I have recollection of great industrial disputes before 1912 in which unions were perfectly certain that they had a just cause for a fight. They will be in precisely the same position as they were in before 1912. Surely, trade unions possess the same general body of powers as they did then, and greater than they possessed prior to 1906. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is quite clear and definite. Prior to 1906, the powers of trade unions to deal with the kind of case we are now considering were very effective. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member, who put his case with great care and moderation, was overstating it when he said it was putting an unfair weapon in the hands of the employers. The words we are proposing to leave out of the Act of 1924 are—
or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms of the provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers," etc.
Somebody has got to decide whether the dispute does arise out of breach of the agreement. Who is going to decide?

Mr. YOUNG: Who has done it since 1920?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I agree it might have been done in the past, but you are imposing very great difficulties. If the workmen are aggrieved because of a breach of contract, the obvious remedy is the remedy of suing the employer. [HON. MEMBEES: "Nonsense!"] Why do hon. Members say "Nonsense"? Why not sue the employer if an agreement has been broken? They are the people who have committed the offence. The offence has been committed by the employers. not by the custodians of the insurance fund

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman asked a question which ought to have a reply. He asked why the workpeople do not sue the employer? He must know that there is no possible chance of suing an employer if the employer gives the workmen seven days' notice that on and from a certain day the terms and conditions previously enjoyed will be dispensed with.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Whether the workman can sue the employer does not depend on the question of seven days, but on the terms of the agreement that are broken. If they are drawn in such a way that contravention makes it possible for employers to take advantage of the protection of the Court, the men have a remedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not know the industry!"] It may be the case that agreements do not contain such clauses, but perhaps the time has arrived when they should. Why not treat industrial disputes by the method of arbitration to which commercial disputes are taken, that is, arbitration by process before a Court of law? Why should a dispute existing between A and B penalise C, C being the rest of the contributors to the Insurance Fund? After all, you are asking the rest of the body of workmen and employers who have contributed to that fund to divert part of that fund to be used in support of the participants of a trade dispute.
There is, I think, one clear line to be taken with regard to the whole question. No industrial dispute ought to be subsidised, one side or the other, by the rest of the community. If you lay that down as a general principle, and it is a general principle that cannot be chal-
lenged, namely, that the actual participants are not entitled to any form of subsidy, you have a clear line to work on. If you do not accept that principle, and think that in certain circumstances one of the parties to a dispute is entitled to a subsidy from the rest of the community, then if the other party happens to be wrong, if the workpeople happen to contravene an agreement, the employer has an equal claim to a subsidy. If you are going to use a fund, which is devised to deal with ordinary unemployment, in support of a dispute, both sides have an equal claim on the Fund. If you stick to the broad principle, that this Fund, which was established for certain specific purposes, shall not be used for other purposes, you are committing no offence against the general body of workmen, for whom the Minister is, for the time being, the custodian.

Mr. VIANT: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) has not quite stated the position. He has spoken of unemployment benefit being paid to a man or woman engaged in a dispute as being tantamount to subsidising one side of the dispute. Hitherto the Act has operated in such a way that there was no question of subsidy because the machinery of the Act made it possible for no benefit to be paid until it was decided whether the employer was in default or not in locking the employés out. Furthermore, it has to be proved that the employer had broken an agreement. Under the Act, the employés who were locked out were unemployed through no fault of their own. But if, on the other hand, it was proved by the umpire that the employés themselves had broken an agreement, they were not paid unemployment pay. Furthermore, their own respective unions were accustomed to deal with them and did not pay them unemployment pay. So they were penalised by their own trade union. If this Amendment be not accepted the men will be penalised through no fault of their own but through the unjust and unfair action of an employer. The hon. Member for Reading must be well aware that it is not easy to follow his advice that the unions should take these cases to the Courts, and further I suggest to the House that we ought not to pass legislation which will cause more litigation, our endeavour should be to reduce litigation. I suggest that no case has been made out for a
change in the law, and all we ask in our Amendment is that the status quo should obtain. Unless we agree to this, men whose employers have deliberately broken an agreement by locking them out will say they are being robbed of benefits for which they have paid, and will be justified in saying extremely harsh things about the Minister and the Government.
The building industry like many other industries, makes national agreements on hours and wages. It often happens that employers in certain districts will "kick over the traces" and endeavour to upset a national or a district agreement by coming to another arrangement with their own employés. I should have thought the Minister of Labour would see the advantage that lies in our proposal from the point of view of minimising the number of industrial disputes, and assisting trade unions in their endeavours to see that national or district agreements are carried out. Under this Bill there will be an inducement to an employer who is outside a federation, or to one who is prepared to break away from his federation, to ignore a national or district agreement, and that will lead to more industrial unrest. Not only will our Amendment assist trade unions to guard the rights of their members, but it will assist national or local federations of employers to bring pressure to bear upon recalcitrant employers to see that agreements are kept both in the spirit and in the letter, and I hope the Minister, bearing these facts in mind, will give our Amendment further consideration.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. DENNISON: I only rise to speak because I regard this Clause as seriously affecting the future of good relationships in industry. In most of the basic trades, including that with which I am associated, we have national agreements covering many plants. When manufacturers refuse either to give effect to agreements come to nationally, or endeavour to get reductions of wages and altered conditions in respect of their own employés—I am happy to say it does not often occur—it can become a very serious matter. There was, however, a notorious case in Scotland, involving 300 workpeople, in which a firm, in spite of the fact that it was a member of the conciliation board, gave notice of a 10 per
cent. reduction in wages. The workpeople naturally declined to accept this. I hope the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) will listen to this, because it is important to him, as the secretary of a manufacturing association, to know something of what goes on in other associations. The action of the firm was not only opposed by the trade unions, but was strongly resented by the other employers, because if that firm was to be allowed to get away with a reduction of 10 per cent. it meant it would be more favourably placed than were the more honourable employers. It was not that our men wanted to stop work; they were encouraged by many of the manufacturers in the West of Scotland to resist the attempt made by this particular firm, which, by the way, was a member of the employers' association and a party to the national agreement. However, all this did not prevent the men being kept out of employment because they declined to accept the reduction. There was an appeal. We failed before the Court of Referees. Ultimately the case went to the Umpire, and when the whole facts were placed before him he gave his decision in favour of the men. I say that if this Clause is inserted in a Bill it will prevent the Umpire treating these cases on their merits.
The hon. Member for Reading says trade unions have a remedy at law; by going to the Courts they can compel employers to conform to agreements; but in this case the employer knew the law perhaps better than the hon. Member for Reading does. He did not break the agreement in the legal sense of the term, but he broke something which was more important, namely, an honourable obligation. As one associated with an industry which is proud of the fact that it has enjoyed a greater measure of industrial peace and good relationships than most industries, I appeal to the Minister to assist us to bring an employer to book when he is not acting the part of a man in regard to his obligations. I daresay the Minister himself knows of many instances, particularly in the Midlands, and in the Birmingham area, which he knows so well, of employers having done what we complain of, and I say frankly that it will
not be helpful either to employers or workpeople if this kind of Clause is put in the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), because he is generally well-informed on these matters. To-night, however, he did not seem to grasp this question. When he spoke of trade unions or workmen suing employers, I felt he had not listened to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), who pointed out that employers gave notice to the workmen and that it was only when that notice to cease work had expired that the employers offered the new terms.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Then no agreement was broken in that case.

Mr. BATEY: I want to help the hon. Member for Reading. I do not want him to make mistakes such as he made to-night. In the circumstances which I have described the workpeople cannot sue the employers. Then the hon. Member said the law ought to be made so that they could do so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say the law ought to be made; I said the agreements ought to be made.

Mr. BATEY: The agreements should be made to provide for the workmen suing the employers. What side of the House has power to do that? If the hon. Member would bring his influence to bear on the Government to do that, we should be very glad, but we have not much hope that the Government will do any such thing. He asked why the rest of the community should be punished for the action of the employers. On the other hand, why should workmen be punished by a refusal of benefits for which they have paid, when they are not guilty of causing the dispute which has put them out of work? The workmen are not guilty, and why should they be punished? We believed, when the Act of 1924 was passed, that when there was a dispute the workmen would be entitled to benefit. We believe that now. We believe that where the workmen are not the guilty parties, and the guilt rests with the employers, the workmen should not be punished. The workmen have paid for the benefit under such circumstances, and they are entitled to receive it. It is no good stating that the workmen and the
employers should be put on a level in regard to these matters, because that is quite an impossibility, and it only means that you would punish the workmen when you could not punish the employer under any circumstances or in any sense. To stop the workmen's unemployed benefit is a real punishment. We all know that the present Act is bad enough, but what is now proposed is going to make it a good deal worse. There have been many decisions given by the umpire in our county of Durham under the present Act which I do not like, and which I consider to be unfair. I believe that the umpire's decision should never be final, but that there should be an appeal. I want to remind the Minister of a particular case in Durham. Last year, after the dispute, the owners forced on the workmen an agreement which laid down that there should be 89 per cent. paid on the basis rates of wages, and that the subsistence wage should be 6s. 8½d. per day. In one case an employer has sought to break the agreement—an agreement imposed by the whole of the owners in the county, and has asked the men to accept 50 per cent. on the basis rate and 5s. 4d. subsistence allowance per day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me if the basis rates also form part of the agreement?

Mr. BATEY: No.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not quite gather what he said, and I was trying to follow the argument.

Mr. BATEY: No; it did not interfere with the basis rate. That was altogether different. The county agreement—although it should have been higher—forced the men to accept 89 per cent., and, instead of 7s. 6½d. day, a subsistence wage of 6s. 8½d. a day. That applied to the subsistence wage, and affected be-between 50,000 and 60,000 men. This particular employer not only put notices up at the colliery but he called. a meeting of the men and their wives and put these new terms before them. He said that instead of 89 per cent. it should be 50 per cent. and instead of 6s. 8½d. a day it should be equal to 5s. 4d. a day subsistence wage. For any employer to-day to offer to pay a man 5s. 4d. a day is a scandal, and had those men accepted it there would have been injury to the rest of the county. We are anxious that the
present Act should not be strengthened in the direction of enabling unscrupulous employers to pursue such a policy as that. Bad as the present Act is, we prefer it to the amended proposal, and I hope the Government will reconsider the matter. The Government's proposal is not so much a question of avoiding friction; the real intention of the Minister of Labour in this, as in his other Amendments, is simply to prevent men from getting unemployed benefit.

Mr. HAYDAY: I want to say only a sentence or two, because the Minister of Labour must know the full force of this suggested alteration of his. If the right hon. Gentleman will inquire in his own Department, he will find that his conciliation officers are constantly employed on cases where employers commit a breach of their national or district agreements. I am also certain that his liaison officers associated with the Whitley Councils could give him reports showing how serious have been the attempts of individual undertakings or companies to break away from the national agreement. If he will recognise the full force of all these issues, he will even now give consideration before taking away this one protection that we have, which has assisted in building up our conciliation machinery, as it exists to-day in the Whitley Councils. I could quote many instances, but will only refer to one. About two years ago, a great undertaking broke away from its agreement. Eventually, to save the Joint Industrial Council, the employers agreed with the workmen to expel that particular undertaking from their own association, and so preserve the harmony, the possibility of peaceable negotiations. and the machinery of the councils.
Surely it is much better to have a body of employers and workmen who will do their best for peace, negotiation and agreement in cases where somebody or other commits a breach. If it is the workmen, their position is clear. They are automatically cut out of their benefit, because of the penalty. If it be an unofficial lot of workmen, the organisation deals with them. When the employer breaks away, and the whole of the machinery is threatened, it is not asking too much that he should be dealt with. It is not, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) said, that other employers and other insured persons would
be paying to keep people who are engaged in a dispute with their employers in benefit. It is simply that they are paying towards those who contribute to benefits, and who have not committed a breach, but are the victims of unscrupulous employers or undertakings which are trying to break down conciliation machinery. Therefore, these men ought to be admitted to benefit. When that position is fully appreciated, I am certain that the Minister of Labour will give further consideration to the point, because it really has very serious consequences. The hon. Member for Reading said that we used to do these things before 1920, and that we have the same facilities now. It will be remembered that when the Whitley Councils were first established—I believe they date back to 1919—it was expected that you would get great national groups representing industries who would form national agreements. All I say is that if you are going to tamper with the keystone of this business you are likely to have a collapse. The tendency during the last 12 months has been to stabilise in our large industries by 12 months' agreements, and, if you expect that those agreements are going to be faithfully carried out, I think you are mistaken, because some individual employer will probably break the agreement, and then the whole of the conditions entered into by the group of employers will tumble down. Hon. Members know that a trade union cannot sue an employer.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is quite wrong there.

Mr. HAYDAY: I think I know what the law is on this question. If you are dealing with an industry covering 100,000 persons and upwards, you may only be dealing with an employers' association consisting of about 100 persons, and the agreement is entered into jointly. Supposing one of those employers withdraws and breaks away from the agreement. You cannot sue that employer on behalf of the whole of the men. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Reading claims to have had more experience than I have had in these matters, but I have been dealing with them for 30 years, and therefore I make him a present of anything that he can make out of the point which he has raised. I know very
well that the only possibility of suing is where the agreement is made direct between the employer and the individual workman, and where a breach of such an individual contract takes place. It is not a question of wanting any unfair advantage, or wanting to establish a position that will protect men in all circumstances where there is a breach of agreement, but I believe that this will be a safeguard that will secure and cement the confidence that is now growing in these agreements. Otherwise, the first little break-away will weaken the whole conciliation machinery, and joint industrial councils will be in jeopardy.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have listened with very great care indeed to all the arguments that have been brought forward on this subject, and I say at once most sincerely that I have every wish to see agreements kept on both sides in industry. Anyone looking at this case may think, as a natural first view, that it is desirable to bring an influence of this kind to bear on employers in order to try to make them keep an agreement if they are willing otherwise to depart from it. I shall be glad—I do not care on which side it is on industry—to bring any proper and legitimate influence to bear, and it is only after a good deal of consideration that I have come to the conclusion, taking the authorities that I have, that it is not really desirable to twist the use of the Insurance Fund to purposes for which it was not intended, and which are foreign to its original and proper purpose, in order to try to attain some end which might from other points of view be desirable.
The House may not generally realise, from the discussion that has taken place, that this has not been a principle on which agreements have been based and built up; this is an entirely new provision, which is only the growth of the last two or three years. It was introduced in the Act of 1924. Very grave doubts were then expressed as to its desirability, and there was certainly very grave question as to whether it would be proper and really useful. The vote was carried against it in the Committee upstairs, and it was reversed, I think—I was not myself present, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was—at a late hour, when not much attention was focussed upon it, during the
Report stage. That was how this principle was first introduced into the law, and, as I have said, at that time very grave doubts were expressed as to its desirability.
The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has laid stress on the way in which these agreements, upon which so much depends, have been built up during his experience of the last 30 years. I would, therefore, put it to everyone in the House that the immediate effect of a provision of this kind in the law cannot be so great, after all. The building up of these agreements, on the hon. Member's own showing, was going on perfectly satisfactorily for years before this provision was ever made part of our legislation. Therefore, I contend that, from the point of view of keeping agreements, and industrial peace, too, it has not been an essential factor. What I feel in my own mind is this—and it is really after weighing the pros and cons of the question—that, if you take a Measure like the Unemployment Insurance Act, and, as I said at the beginning, twist it to uses which it was never intended to subserve, you may in the end do more harm than good. I know that that was the quite definite conclusion—I do not propose to read it in detail; it covers a good many lines—of the Blanesburgh Committee, and, as far as I can see, it is really better to leave these agreements, which were made before ever this provision was introduced three years ago, to the influence of employers and workmen on the two sides to impose upon their fellows.
Let me outline again what would be the necessary corollary of continuing the provision, and it is a corollary that I think would be a wrong one and one that would, without question, lead really to industrial disturbance, and yet it must necessarily follow, because one could not in justice deny it. Up till three years ago, and in its fundamental nature, the Insurance Fund was never intended to help either side in an industrial dispute. It was kept quite clear of industrial disputes. If ever there was an industrial dispute of any kind, whether it would be called a strike or a lock-out, a breach of an agreement or not a breach of an agreement, two consequences followed. In the first place, the men did not get benefit, and in the
second place the masters got no advantage, because the jobs that were vacant through the dispute could not be offered to other persons by an Exchange as a test of willingness to work. From that point of view, the scales were held evenly as between the two sides, and the establishment of the industrial insurance system was not brought into an industrial dispute one way or the other. Truly, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you continue to maintain a penalty on the employer for breaking an agreement, a similar penalty for breaking an agreement must, in fairness, be imposed upon the other side.

Mr. WHITELEY: So it is.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is not.

Mr. WHITELEY: A man does not get benefit.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A man, in any case, does not get benefit in any dispute, whether there is a breach of agreement or not. He is hurt by that. The employer loses his business, and he is hurt by that with his competitors. The analogy in this case is quite different, and I defy anyone to contradict the social truth of what I say. If you are going to use the Unemployment Insurance Act as a means of making employers keep agreements, you must use it also to make the men keep agreements. If you use it for the purpose of making the employers keep an agreement, you must use it also to make the men keep an agreement, and the inevitable corollary is that if the men break an agreement the places so open can be offered to other men by an Exchange, and the other men must know that they are liable to lose benefit unless they accept those places. I say without any hesitation that is a most undesirable thing to have happen. It is much more likely to cause trouble than anything else. You cannot possibly have one penalty without the other, and it is the fact that those two come together that, to my mind, makes it undesirable to have this Amendment as suggested, and that the system should stand as it originally stood and should not enter into the question of disputes one way or the other.

It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKKR proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 1st December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 126.

Division No. 457.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Foster, Sir Harry, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W
Frece, Sir Walter de
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Balniel, Lord
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Bennett, A. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Berry, Sir George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bethel, A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Betterton, Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hanbury, C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Briggs, J. Harold
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilcher, G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Remnant, Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandon, Lord


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Huntingfield, Lord
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jephcott, A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Dixey, A. C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tinne, J. A.


Fielden, E. B.
MacIntyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Finburgh, S.
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Watts, Dr. T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wells, S. R
Womersley, W. J.
Major Cope and Major the Marquess


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
of Titchfield.


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H E.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
MacNeill-Weir, L
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March, s.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Bill read the Third time and passed.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)

Amendments made:

In page 18, line 48, after the word "person," insert the words
Provided that the foregoing provision with respect to persons engaged in work provided by a local authority shall not apply in the case of any person who has previously been in receipt of unemployment benefit and is employed in full-time work provided by the authority.
For the purpose of this provision a person shall not be deemed to have been employed in full-time work unless he has worked for such number of hours in each week as would normally have been worked by him if he had been employed on the same work otherwise than under such an arrangement as aforesaid.

In page 19, leave out from the word "any," in line 17, to the word "he," in line 23, and insert instead thereof the words
employer in employment which is excepted under this paragraph ceases to serve under that employer and on so ceasing enters other employment which is so excepted."—(Sir A. Steel-Maitland.)

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Order in Schedule.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Before this Clause is passed and before this Order is approved, it is essential that some brief statement should be made by the promoters of the Bill with regard to one part of it. By an Act of 1803 an assessment or tax was made for the raising of a fund to maintain the wives and dependants of militiamen, drummers and non-commissioned officers who were taken for the armies in the Napoleonic Wars. Relief was provided only for families who were unable through destitution to maintain themselves. The advance was on the most meagre scale. A weekly allowance of one day's average labour wage was given for a wife and one day's wage for every child under 10 years of age. There was no allowance whatever for children over 10. A certificate of inability had to be given by a heritor or by a minister of the parish. By Clause 21 of the Act, no substitute could be taken for any balloted man. After the Napoleonic Wars, there was a balance in this fund, undistributed to the wives and children, of £2,974, and that sum was handed1 over by the Commissioners or trustees who were then in charge of it to a County Buildings Fund, and since 1824 that money has been used to maintain parts of the county buildings. The parts of the county buildings maintained have reduced the sum to £1,568.
That money at 5 per cent. compound interest would have meant a sum now approaching £200,000, which, if it had been spent for the purpose for which it was raised, would have been spent upon the common soldiers or their dependants in the county of Perth. But during this period of over 100 years the money has been spent on maintaining several rooms in the county buildings for the following purposes: For balls during the meetings of the Perth Hunt; when the county Member gives a dinner or receives one from his friends (I do not know which
county Member that refers to now); when any candidate for the representation of the county, whether successful or not, gives a dinner to his friends or receives one from them; or when a dinner is given by any county corps on a particular occasion. For these four purposes the county ballroom and supper-room have been used for over 100 years. It cannot be said that the Gentlemen who have been in control of these buildings have acted without knowledge of what they were doing. They were legally advised, almost threequarters of a century ago, that they were wrongfully spending public money raised for the maintenance of serving soldiers and the wives and dependants of those soldiers. Despite that legal advice, which they got in 1854, they have continued to spend that money up to now, and we have after 100 years the county gentry of Perth coming forward in this House and asking what is virtually relief for their wrongful intermission of public money. They are now handing over these public buildings to the county council of Perth and, in future, these buildings will, presumably, be democratically controlled. Therefore we have no further objection to the provisions of this Bill. I think however we ought to have an explanation from the promoters as to the reasons, if any, which they can offer in justification for using funds raised for ex-service men for class county purposes.

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member who has just spoken confined his opposition to the Bill to the one point, and even within the limits of the very few moments which I shall occupy, I hope to show that it is not a very substantial one. The facts are simply these. A militia fund was raised under Act of Parliament for the purposes which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but with this addition. The purpose of the fund was that it was to be used as a form of maintenance allowance to the wives and children, as the hon. Member said, while the recipient was actually serving. The fund, which was a properly constituted assessment by law, really was the predecessor of subsequent arrangements. The fund, as soon as the Napoleonic Wars were over, and the militia returned to civil life, had no legal function left. The question then before the commissioners of supply, who were the predecessors of the county council, was: Where was that fund to go? It
was decided to hand it over to another body constituted by Act of Parliament, namely, a body which in 1807 had been charged with the duty of erecting county buildings in Perth. To that body, whose functions had not then been completed, the fund, which amounted to rather over £2,000, was handed over.
No question was raised at the time, and no question was raised for more than 37 years. The only question then was, not whether it should have been used—quite improperly—for the maintenance of the families of the militiamen who had been returned to civil occupation. The only alternatives then suggested were that it should be added to a fund known as the "rogue money" fund used for the apprehension, maintenance and prosecution of malefactors, or handed to the body charged with the erection of county buildings. Those were the two alternatives. The original function of the fund was discharged, and the alternatives were to hand it over to the "rogue money" fund or to another legally constituted body which was charged particularly with the duty of erecting county buildings. The latter alternative was chosen. The hon. Member does not suggest and, there is no room for the suggestion, that the fund when transferred to this properly constituted body was not properly used. It was used, first, for the completion of the work of erecting county buildings, which was the work the commissioners had been charged with by Parliament, and the balance was used for the maintenance of those buildings and has been so used since. As far as these interesting facts which my hon. Friend and I have stated to the House are concerned, I think their relevance is very slight.
What does this Bill seek to do? It seeks to transfer to the county council these buildings which, to some small extent, were built with the help of this Militia Fund, and for a period of years were maintained by it, that is to say, to hand over the council buildings to the successors of the people who handed over the Militia Fund for the purpose of building and maintaining the buildings. I do not think my hon. Friend has suggested that the money was misused or not spent for the purposes for which it was handed over to the legally constituted body, namely, the Commissioners for the erection of the Council buildings, and he has
laid before the House no argument to show why he so passionately desires that the apprehension of rogues should have taken precedence over the job of building county buildings. It seems to me that, although the House is no doubt greatly indebted both to him and to me for an extremely interesting historical disquisition, there is nothing in his speech which should postpone the easy passage of the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Before the hon. Member sits down, would he address his mind for a moment to the purposes for which these buildings have been used in the past 100 years?

Mr. SKELTON: I had intended to say something about it, but I thought it was too personal. They have been used for the festive purposes for which, apparently, they were quite properly intended. I want to inform the House, in case it should be supposed that I have too great a personal interest in the matter, that neither as an unsuccessful county candidate, which I have been, nor as a County or City member, have I ever given or have I, unfortunately, ever received a dinner in these buildings.

Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; considered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899); read the Third time, and passed.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order).

Order for consideration read.

Bill considered accordingly.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Clause on the paper in the names of the two hon. Members for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour and Mr. Johnston) is out of order, first, because it imposes a charge on the rates, which cannot be done on Report stage, and, secondly, because it makes a proposal which requires notice being given to the people concerned, according to our
procedure. The hon. Members will be able to raise the point on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: We had no intention in any way of seeking to oppose the Bill, but on learning that those who had charge of its procedure had not been able to accept the particular Clause which we had down, we felt it would be necessary to ascertain some reason why they had not been able to accept it as well as the others. Our procedure, of course, was to put down an intimation of the Motion so that it might work out, if possible, for the reinsertion of the Clause. As a matter of fact, we had the good advice the Chairman of Committee as to the possibility of such a step being taken successfully in the event only of an agreement being arrived at here. That was somewhat doubtful, but at the same time, we have now the opportunity of putting some points in favour of the Clause.
I would just mention, in regard to the Clause itself, that this estate of Belmont was originally the estate of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and it was acquired by the late Sir James Caird, of Dundee, who purchased it for £55,000. His sister, who strangly enough passed away at the beginning of this week, made it over as a gift to the City of Dundee, and, as explained in the course of the proceedings before the Committee, it was put down very clearly that the desire of the benefactress was that, first and foremost, the mansion of Belmont should be available for disabled soldiers. That has been followed out in its entirety. The second recommendation that she was good enough to make was the adaption of the mansion for the purpose of a home of rest for workers. That provision had for me a special interest. We have in the City of Dundee the Bannatyne Home for Women, and when there was a possibility of securing an arrangement of this kind, I certainly, like many of the other workers in the City, was very favourable to its being done. As a matter of fact, that Clause was inserted just as unanimously as other Clauses in the Order, and we hoped it would go through. As it transpired, there apparently had been perhaps in the minds of some a feeling
that the witnesses put up for the Corporation had not been so fully prepared to satisfy the Members of the Committee in regard to this particular Clause as they might have been. One of the stipulations was that if the Corporation did not see fit to run the institution in that way by themselves, then it could be run by any particular organisation. It was left open for that to be done.

11.0 p.m.

There were two farms which, being let out, produced an income of £1,270 between them, and that was taken towards the adjustment of the estate. Apparently it was felt that with the deficiency on the estate, for the last nine years, of £7,000 to £8,000, probably it would be inadvisable to have this proposal as in the Clause, that the mansion and the estate should be placed on the rates instead of being on the Common Good. In the Clause the provision was an optional one for the exaction of a rate not exceeding one penny, but, as a matter of fact, the legal representative of the corporation agreed, in view of the evidence, to reduce that penny to a halfpenny, so that the rating, if any exacted, should not exceed a halfpenny. The city engineer showed that the reduction in the debt was very considerable, and when asked a question as to how many workers would be provided for, he said 120 men or thereabouts, and that as an anticipated deficit of no more than £3,000 would be met by a halfpenny rate, the whole thing seemed a feasible proposal. Because of the procedure adopted by my colleague and me in trying to get this considered in the way we are doing, the city Press took up an attitude of antagonism to anything being done at all. In addition, the Lord Provost of the city took upon himself an attitude of severe criticism. I think it right to give an indication of what has been put forward regarding our attitude, and to deal with it from a defensive point of view. The leading article says:
The action of the Committee in striking out this bit of 'something for nothing' Socialist politics was most proper, and we have little doubt the majority of the town council were glad to get quit of it. But under the pressure of Wellgate via Westminster the Committee has now pledged the town council to insert the rejected Clause in the next Provisional Order. … (The Bill) authorises a great deal of far from essential expenditure, and the council could have saved 10 times as much as the sacri-
ficed costs of promotion by abandoning some of the schemes the Order authorises. A selection 'could have been made which would have vexed nobody but the people concerned in the blocking manœuvre.
The proposal, as far as I was concerned, was in no way impelled by any organisation other than the Dundee Corporation, and my attitude has all along been that, if I can conscientiously support anything the corporation have tried to do, I have done it; and I have done it in this House, and, having followed that course, I submit it is very far from a proper attitude on the part of the Lord Provost to take exception to Members of Parliament for the city following out only what the corporation wanted to secure. Now you find that a very ridiculous opposition is exhibited, not only by the Press, but by the Lord Provost himself. Another article in the Dundee Press said:
The serious result of the blocking of the Order was pointed out. The cost of the Order itself would run into four figures, and the extra expense incurred through blocking the Order would be considerable, as Parliamentary agents and counsel had to specially consider the new situation. Had the blocking motion been persisted in the effect would have been serious for the city. It would have amounted to the whole Order being lost.
In the whole of our proceedings we have in no way sought to oppose the order. We have simply been guided by those whom we are entitled to have as our advisers in this House to secure anything that might be reasonable. All the time we were making it clear that we did not want to injure the interest of the Bill. The point about the ½d. is that it has been stated that we had not given proper attention to the Clause as it stood in the original, and that we bad probably made a mistake. The "Advertiser" says:
The public, however, will note a curious halt in their enthusiasm"—
that is a reference to myself and my colleague—
The Clause as it appeared in the original Bill authorised the council to expend on the Belmont ' Home of Rest' project the produce of a penny rate. In the Motion now on the Paper for the reinsertion of the Clause the penny rate is reduced to a halfpenny. What is the explanation of this strange and uncharacteristic break towards economy? Do the local members think that to spend a penny rate would be an un-
warrantable extravagance, or have they merely blundered in the labour of copying?
I will read from the evidence, from which the House will see how far the Lord Provost, along with the editor of the "Advertiser," has got lost:
Supposing you have got 100 inmates in Belmont, how much would you estimate it would cost to keep them there?—There was prepared a statement which I do not have with me, but there was to be a loss of about £3,000 a year.
How many people would be in that estimate?—120 people would be in the house under that estimate.
What does a 1d. in the £ on the rates give?—£6,000.
So that ½d. in the £ would meet at present your estimated loss of £3,000?—Yes. I am quite sure that ½d. in the £ would meet the deficit if it was turned into a home of rest.
That was the evidence of Mr. Baxter, the city engineer. Then said Mr. Mackintosh, their advocate:
We would be prepared, in view of the evidence, to amend the Clause in question to read 'Provided such expense shall not exceed ½d. per £' instead of '1d. per £.'
I know that to some hon. Members this may not be of particular interest, but I feel that I am discharging my duty. The "Advertiser" having gone wrong, the Lord Provost has lost the road as well. I have gone to the official evidence. We were so careful that we followed out exactly what had been asked for. I do not reckon that I am going to be subject to the dictatorship of any Lord Provost or editor. As a matter of fact I am here in spite of them. It has been said that we were adopting a little propaganda. I am convinced, and I shall be able to prove, that the propaganda is on the other side. The Lord Provost, being a Die-hard Tory, is working for some other prospective candidate, to see what can be done in the next Election. I do not believe in doing electioneering business on a basis of that kind, but he is not so scrupulous. I say that in the past I have been available for doing the business of the Dundee Corporation. When I was asked by my colleague whether I intended to do anything of this kind I said "Yes." because I felt that the Corporation had asked for it, and there was no evidence against the Clause, and yet it was deleted. I found that something for which the Dundee Corporation had asked had been struck out
without any explanation, and if I had not taken action I think I would have been regarded as being at fault, and very likely I would have been taken to task if it had suited the Lord Provost and the "Advertiser." I have done my duty, and there has been not a single iota of risk to the Measure. The Bill will go through in proper form.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I would like to endorse what my colleague has said about the Belmont "Home of Rest," and to utter an emphatic protest against the decision, unanimously taken after due consideration, by the Dundee Town Council and members of all political parties, no political question arising. It was a question of the lives and the health of ex-service men and aged workers in the City of Dundee. There was no protest against this Clause from any section of the ratepayers of Dundee. Then the Clause came before a committee of two Peers and two Conservative Members of this House, who, so far as I know, had no representations made to them.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to attack the tribunal, nor is he entitled to attack the procedure adopted by members on the tribunal. The hon. Member himself might be sitting on a tribunal not in his own county or city, and he would not like other Members to discuss his action.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I desire to point out that a decision, democratically taken, unanimously taken, by persons representing all classes in the City of Dundee, has been turned down and thrown out of the Bill without a word of explanation. I merely want to add my protest against that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question in regard to the Scottish Office. Did this Measure come before the Scottish Office for consideration? Seeing that the Dundee Town Council unanimously agreed to this, and seeing that nobody appeared before the tribunal to oppose it, I want to ask whether the Scottish Office took exception to it on the ground of the increase in the rates, or on any ground in any way connected with that Department?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): This matter was considered by the proper tribunal. Evidence was given in support of it, and was deemed by the Committee to be insufficient and was struck out of the Bill.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elecricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the township of Great Barr, in the rural district of Walsall, and part of the parish of Shenstone, in the rural district of Lichfield, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Barnoldswick, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Earby, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Purley, Sulham, and Tidmarsh, in the rural district of Bradfield, in the county of Berks, and for the amendment of the Whitchurch and Pangbourne Electric Lighting Order, 1903, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Southwold and the parishes of Reydon and Walberswick, in the
rural district of Blything, in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Watchet and part of the rural district of Williton, in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Midhurst and Westhampnett, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the County of London Electric Supply Company, Limited, and the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company to give a supply of electricity in bulk to each other, and for purposes incidental thereto, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."—[Lieut.-Col. Ashley.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE (DUNDEE).

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. JOHNSTON: I desire to raise the case of which I have given notice of a girl named Charlotte Leitch in Lochee, Dundee. Her father was wounded in the War and died in 1917 while undergoing hospital treatment. The family pension was stopped five years ago. In this family there were then three children the oldest being 13 years of age, the next 12, and the third is aged three months. After the death of her husband
the mother was compelled to go out to work in a jute mill. The eldest girl has been engaged assisting her aunt in a shop. This girl was accused before the Dundee Sheriff of having received goods two years ago—I think they were biscuits—for which the aunt had not paid. The girl declared that she had not received the goods and that the signature on the receipt was not here. This girl has been sentenced to two months' imprisonment without the option of a fine, for a first offence upon evidence which depends on one man's memory—and that one man specifically said he could not identify her. A decision of this kind, based upon what appears to be flimsy and insufficient evidence, which sends a girl against whom no accusation has previously been made to prison for two months on a charge like this, is a crime against modern civilisation. This girl collapsed in prison. A petition has been signed for her release. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that he cannot see his way to reduce her sentence. Another factor in the case is the state of the girl's health. We have evidence that she is unable to stand imprisonment at all; and her family are in great distress. Here you have a girl who is physically weak sent to prison for two months without the option of a fine on a charge which depends on the evidence of one man and upon one man's memory of an incident which took place two years ago. This is something which the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to justify. By the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, a fine is permissible. This girl had not been arrested, she was not out on bail, she came quite freely to the Court to stand her trial.
This young girl, 23 years of age, has had her case taken up by every newspaper of every political opinion in the East of Scotland—by papers which are bitter opponents of ours and strong supporters of the right hon. Gentleman—with such headlines as "Scandals," "Harsh Sentence on Young Girl that ought to be quashed," and so on, in papers which do not support us, but support the right hon. Gentleman and the political party which he represents. In these circumstances I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give this House an assurance that he will at any rate have the most stringent medical examination made of this girl, and, if he
can get the slightest medical justification for it, release her, because I am sure that nothing less will satisfy public opinion in Dundee; and, particularly in view of other recent cases, I trust that he will not delay his decision, but will act at once. I do not need to tell the right hon. Gentleman that petitions have been sent to higher quarters than himself; he knows it full well. We have done everything that we can do by private negotiation, through the Press, and by public petition to higher quarters, to have this case re-examined and the girl released, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to imagine that there is any political propaganda in this at all, but to act in a humane way and let this girl out of prison.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman two points? I had an interview with him, and there was his formal answer to a question to-day, which, unfortunately, was against us. In the first place, I would point to the substantial good character of this girl, well confirmed on every hand, and the fact that there has never been any exception taken to her conduct in the past. In the second place, in view of the circumstances, and of there being only one witness, I suggest that there might have been consideration on the part of the Sheriff in allowing, as he had the power to do, a fine to be imposed. I submit respectfully to the right hon. Gentleman that some step should be taken to meet what undoubtedly is felt to be a very gross bestowal of what is called justice from the legal point of view, but which we feel to be from a moral point of view a gross injustice.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a case which arose out of a prosecution dealing with a civil action, and the circumstances which were divulged on that occasion led the authorities to take further steps to deal with what eventually was proved to be a case of perjury. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House in general, that a case of perjury is a very serious case. It goes to the root and foundation of the whole legal structure of our country, and when hon. Members say to me that this is a first offence, and a matter which ought to be dealt with leniently, I am bound to say that I cannot agree with
that point of view. Be that as it may, I think it is clear that the greatest care was exercised in dealing with this case, and when the hon. Gentleman says that this girl was convicted on the evidence of a single person who could not speak to her identity, I would remind him that the facts are that this was established on the signature of the girl, that the Sheriff was satisfied that the signature was a genuine signature, and, further that it was admitted—

Mr. JOHNSTON: He said there were points of difference.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Everyone knows that, when any hon. Member signs his name in this House, there are points of difference between the signatures which each one makes from time to time; but the girl herself, as I understand, admitted that it was very like her signature. In any case the Sheriff was satisfied that the signature was correct. Let me add that clearly this is a case where it was proved that the goods were delivered by the railway, that the actual delivery was taken and the credit note given in the shop on the day in question for returned empties. It is evident that the vanman who took this was there at the time, and, in addition, it was admitted by the girl that she was the only individual in the shop at that time. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I think it is clear that the crime, for such it is, was proved to the satisfaction of the Sheriff who had to deal with the problem.
Now I turn to the question as to the medical condition of this unfortunate girl. She arrived, no doubt, in prison after the proceedings at the Court as many people do, in rather a disturbed state. I caused a report to be submitted to me immediately, in view of the allegations and statements being made in the Press and elsewhere. I ascertained that her condition was not in any case serious or gave any indication of real ill-health. I received a further report yesterday. My information is that her condition is entirely satisfactory and that all such signs of nervousness as were apparent when she first went to prison had disappeared. I have also caused the prison officials to report to me from time to time as to the state of her health. I am bound to say, looking at this case
purely on its merits, that I have to decide that the conviction is a proper conviction, and in so far as the question of health is concerned, there is nothing which can be adduced at the present time to make me feel that a modification of the sentence could be given.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in a case with regard to which I had some correspondence with him, the shoe was on another foot, and he was not very keen that any prosecution should follow. I remember bringing before his notice the case of a man who was acquitted by the Sheriff of Hamilton because he was dissatisfied with the evidence laid by the police. I am sorry that I have not sufficient time to deal
with the matter; but I want to add my opinion as to the scandalous nature of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is no other place in the world where cases of the character raised by my hon. Friend could so frequently be brought. Apparently, we can get nothing done; we cannot even get fair play, and we might as well be perfectly frank as to the qualities of the right hon. Gentleman who represents Scotland on the Front Bench opposite.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.